From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266583AbUGKMnS (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 08:43:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266585AbUGKMnR (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 08:43:17 -0400 Received: from colin2.muc.de ([193.149.48.15]:19721 "HELO colin2.muc.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S266583AbUGKMnK (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jul 2004 08:43:10 -0400 Date: 11 Jul 2004 14:43:07 +0200 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 14:43:07 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: serious performance regression due to NX patch Message-ID: <20040711124307.GA88881@muc.de> References: <2giKE-67F-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gIc8-6pd-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gJ8a-72b-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <2gJhY-776-21@gated-at.bofh.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 07:56:10AM -0400, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > +#ifdef __i386__ > > > > Won't do on x86-64. > > well on x86-64 'non-executable' really means non-executable, and always > did, right? (and this is completely separate from the issue of whether the > process stack is executable or not. This is about x86 that didnt enforce > the vma's protection bit.) Not quite - there is 32bit emulation. And the 64bit version also doesn't do NX by default, but also relies on ELF header bits for this. -Andi