Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:13:41 +0100 From: Marius Bendiksen <Marius.Bendiksen@scancall.no> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: rnordier@nordier.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD on i386 memory model Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19981118121341.00975ac0@mail.scancall.no> In-Reply-To: <199811172208.OAA29032@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199811171806.LAA03809@usr09.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The only differences between a normal call gate and an > interrupt is that an interrupt disables interrupts on call > (cli equivalent), while a call gate does not, and a Ehrm. Allow me to note that, unless I'm way off mark here, there is a difference between an interrupt gate and a trap gate. One of these does indeed disable interrupts; the other does not. I believe it is the trap gate which does not. > call gate has extra garbage to handle argument copying > (which we don't use), while an interrupt does not. The part about argument copying yields an extra layer of isolation, by giving you the ability to stick everything on a completely different stack. > There are constructs that make call gates sound like a > walk in the park, though... a task gate, for example. > What a holy mess. I doubt the divinities played a hand in the creation of *that* particular mechanism. > Interrupt gates are definitely faster. Okay. I seemed to recall it being the other way around. Obtw; are they only faster upon entry, or do they return quicker, too? --- Marius Bendiksen, IT-Trainee, ScanCall AS <marius@scancall.no> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19981118121341.00975ac0>