From: David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [patch] ia64: fix potential NaT bit error for sys_pipe().
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:43:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16885.20434.940501.628304@napali.hpl.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16878.2168.388519.26567@napali.hpl.hp.com>
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:32:27 -0800, "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> said:
Ken> Absolutely agreeing with updating the comments. Also in a way,
Ken> what you said earlier also make sense. Since clearing psr.mfh
Ken> is only half of the optimization. That would only optimize
Ken> away the storing part of context switch. However, if later we
Ken> take a dfh fault, if thread fph valid bit is on, we end up
Ken> loading from memory instead of a simple zeroing. So I better
Ken> do both, clearing psr.mfh and fph valid bit in thread.flags.
OK, I had assumed that you had tested this already. Clearing the
FPH_VALID bit in the syscall path does potentially increase the
syscall overhead as it requires a read-modify-write. Cache-wise we
should be OK, since the neighboring "on_ustack" byte is being touched
anyhow. If the code turns out to be difficult to schedule in the
syscall path, an alternate option would be to make FPH_VALID a
separate byte member, right next to on_ustack, so it can be cleared
with "st1 [rXX]=r0".
--david
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-24 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-01-19 7:12 [patch] ia64: fix potential NaT bit error for sys_pipe() David Mosberger
2005-01-20 17:52 ` David Mosberger
2005-01-20 19:00 ` Seth, Rohit
2005-01-20 23:22 ` Seth, Rohit
2005-01-20 23:51 ` David Mosberger
2005-01-21 3:32 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-01-21 18:48 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-01-24 6:40 ` David Mosberger
2005-01-24 19:17 ` David Mosberger
2005-01-24 19:32 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-01-24 19:43 ` David Mosberger [this message]
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=16885.20434.940501.628304@napali.hpl.hp.com \
--to=davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox