From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailserv2.iuinc.com (qmailr@mailserv2.iuinc.com [206.245.164.55]) by sod.res.cmu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA04640 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:00:23 -0500 Received: (from mickey@localhost) by lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) id RAA12330 for hppa-linux@thepuffingroup.com; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:00:07 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Shalayeff Message-Id: <199903292200.RAA12330@lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net> Subject: Re: [hppa-linux] syscall work In-Reply-To: <199903292146.NAA28577@bart.allegro.com> from Stan Sieler at "Mar 29, 99 01:46:02 pm" To: sieler@allegro.com (Stan Sieler) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 16:55:07 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: mickey@openbsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: mickey@lucifier.dial-up.user.akula.net Making, drinking tea and reading an opus magnum from Stan Sieler: > Hi, re > > okie, but why emulating gate instruction, when there is already such > > instruction exist? (; > > Simple: HP does this...there must be a reason. > > They appear to do it on selected models of PA-RISC systems. Why? Don't know. which models? could it be level 1 systems w/ less VM resources? > I can only conjecture...and the conjecture is the obvious one: there must be > some circumstance where GATE fails. Otherwise, *why* replace it with > a slightly slower mechanism? hardware bug for example? maybe again on certain systems w/ less tlb size and/or cache. btw, lites/mklinux do not emulate gate. cu -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)