Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:02:50 -0700
From:      Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
To:        Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>, current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: sysenter patch question
Message-ID:  <43C958EA.5080202@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <43C952A3.5020009@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20060114095318.GA39508@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <43C91972.7020901@samsco.org> <43C952A3.5020009@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> Scott Long wrote:
> 
>> I was the last to work on the patch, and that was about a year or so
>> ago.  It worked fine under fairly simple processes, but trying to run
>> things like KDE and Mozilla made it blow up fairly quickly.  I suspect
>> that it has something to do with thread upcalls, but I never got around
>> to figuring it out.  If someone wants to pick it up, that would be
>> great.  Note that this only matters for i386; amd64 has always had its
>> own version of sysenter that it uses.
> 
> 
> As far as I know, amd64 uses the SYSCALL instruction, which I believe, 
> should have about the same performance as SYSENTER.
> 
> --Suleiman
> 

Actually, the AMD SYSCALL command is a heck of a lot easier to use since 
it doesn't make as many assumptions about segment descriptors.

Scott




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43C958EA.5080202>