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>