From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Nov 13 06:31:48 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id GAA16778
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:31:48 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from terra.Sarnoff.COM (terra.sarnoff.com [130.33.11.203])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id GAA16773
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 06:31:45 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from rminnich@Sarnoff.COM)
Received: (from rminnich@localhost) by terra.Sarnoff.COM (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05626; Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:31:08 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 09:31:07 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ron G. Minnich" <rminnich@Sarnoff.COM>
X-Sender: rminnich@terra
To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: BSDI F0 bug workaround implementation
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971113093335.22485A-100000@iclub.nsu.ru>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.971113092136.5504A-100000@terra>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I'm not sure I understand the full implications of the impact of this
hack, although it is worrisome. Judging by what my pentium book says about
the layout of the IDT, it seems like it will increase interrupt latency
for page faults and many maskable interrupts. Can anyone more
knowledgeable than I comment on this? Page fault overhead on freebsd is
pretty high: would a short-cut make sense that does not go through the
full vm system for this? Otherwise page fault overhead may come close to 
doubling ...

thanks
ron

Ron Minnich                |Java: an operating-system-independent, 
rminnich@sarnoff.com       |architecture-independent programming language
(609)-734-3120             |for Windows/95 and Windows/NT on the Pentium
ftp://ftp.sarnoff.com/pub/mnfs/www/docs/cluster.html