From: "Thomas J. Merritt" <tjm@codegen.com>
To: Peter Tattam <peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, discuss@x86-64.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [Bug 350] New: i386 context switch very slow compared to 2.4 due to wrmsr (performance)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:07:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200302140407.h1E477oP041875@tenor.codegen.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:01:30 +1100. <Pine.BSF.3.96.1030214125805.16984A-100000@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au>
|<><><><><> Original message from Peter Tattam <><><><><>
|On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Eric Northup wrote:
|
|> On Thursday 13 February 2003 07:14 pm, Peter Tattam wrote:
|> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Andi Kleen wrote:
|> > > [Hmm, this is becomming a FAQ]
|> > >
|> > > > Switching in and out of long mode is evil enough that I don't think it
|> > > > is worth it. And encouraging people to write good JIT compiling
|> > >
|> > > Forget it. It is completely undefined in the architecture what happens
|> > > then. You'll lose interrupts and everything. Nothing for an operating
|> > > system intended to be stable.
|> > >
|> > > I have no plans at all to even think about it for Linux/x86-64.
|> [snip]
|> >
|> > The only other unknown quantity is the time it takes for the CPU to
|> > enable/disable long mode, but with modern CPU speeds, the interrupt latency
|> > may only be mildy affect by such a process, unless the CPU is broken in
|> > some way. I see no discussion in the AMD manuals regarding the cost of the
|> > mode switch, only what AMD engineers have hinted at.
|>
|> I think the real issue is that AMD neither recommends nor supports this
|> strategy. ( http://www.x86-64.org/lists/discuss/msg02964.html ... there were
|
|> better posts but I couldn't find them) People with real hardware can't talk
|> about it right now, but it seems to me this is just begging to get hit by
|> errata -- how much effore do you think team Hammer spent testing a subtle
|> mode transition which is marked "Don't do that!" ?
|>
|
|well, I guess AMD need to come out & explicitly state this somewhere other than
|on a mailing list. I wouldn't be only one tempted to see if it can be done,
|and if it becomes "necessary" for some OSes, AMD will get locked into a
|backward compatibility minefield. Anyone know what Windows 64 does about this
|issue? If Microsoft considers that it is sufficient to warp the CPU for v86
|emulation, it may just be a done deal.
The only way to get from long-mode back to legacy-mode is to reset the
processor. It can be done in software but you will likely lose interrupts.
Attempting to switch out of long-mode by modifying EFER will just get you a #GP
fault. You might want to read Volume 2 section 14.6.2.
TJ Merritt
tjm@codegen.com
1-925-462-4300 x115
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-14 3:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-12 1:35 [Bug 350] New: i386 context switch very slow compared to 2.4 due to wrmsr (performance) Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-12 2:59 ` Dave Jones
2003-02-12 4:21 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12 5:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-12 10:12 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-03-10 3:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-10 11:06 ` Andi Kleen
2003-03-10 18:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-10 22:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-12 12:54 ` Dave Jones
2003-02-12 7:50 ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-12 10:27 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12 10:45 ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-12 17:52 ` Ingo Oeser
2003-02-12 18:13 ` Dave Jones
2003-02-12 18:18 ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-13 2:42 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-13 5:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-02-13 18:07 ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-14 0:14 ` [discuss] " Peter Tattam
2003-02-14 1:29 ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-14 1:51 ` Eric Northup
2003-02-14 2:01 ` Peter Tattam
2003-02-14 4:07 ` Thomas J. Merritt [this message]
2003-02-14 9:38 ` Peter Finderup Lund
2003-02-14 8:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-03-19 1:22 ` Rob Landley
2003-02-12 4:18 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12 5:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-12 10:18 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12 17:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-18 15:24 ` Kevin Pedretti
2003-03-18 16:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-18 18:30 ` Brian Gerst
2003-03-18 19:14 ` Thomas Molina
2003-03-18 19:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-18 20:03 ` Thomas Schlichter
2003-03-18 20:24 ` Steven Cole
2003-03-19 0:42 ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-03-19 2:22 ` george anzinger
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-14 14:03 [discuss] " Robert Dewar
2003-02-14 14:25 ` Peter Finderup Lund
2003-02-14 14:25 ` Peter Finderup Lund
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200302140407.h1E477oP041875@tenor.codegen.com \
--to=tjm@codegen.com \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter@jazz-1.trumpet.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.