Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 12:56:53 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net>, Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com>, Dan Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request for review: getcontext, setcontext, etc Message-ID: <3C41F495.3660F8F6@mindspring.com> References: <3C4001A3.5ECCAEB9@mindspring.com> <20020112205919.E5372-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <20020114074238.S561@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote: > Also, how expensive is a DNA trap? Would it be cheaper overall to > always load FPU context on a switch - this is more expensive for > processes that don't use FP, but saves a DNA trap per context switch > (assuming they use FP in that slice) for those that do. I'd like to see a kernel that saves FPU state always benched against a kernel that does lazy binding, using the "make world weighted average of three runs" benchmark. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C41F495.3660F8F6>