From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [patch 04/17] Add pagetable accessors to pack and unpack pagetable entries Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 08:59:09 +1000 Message-ID: <1175727549.12230.583.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070402055652.610711908@goop.org> <200704041347.42822.ak@suse.de> <4613C828.2030604@goop.org> <200704041756.35016.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704041756.35016.ak@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , lkml List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 17:56 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wednesday 04 April 2007 17:45:44 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Why is there a difference for null syscall? I had assumed we patched = all the = > > > fast path cases relevant there. Do you have an idea where it comes fr= om? > > = > > Sure. There's indirect calls for things like sti/cli/iret. It goes > > back to native speed when you patch the real instructions inline. > = > I was talking about the patched case. It seemed to be a little slower > too, but in theory it shouldn't have been, no? = You'll still have the damage inflicted on gcc's optimizer, though. Rusty.