Re: For your amusement: slightly faster syscalls

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:42 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/15/2015 02:30 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 12, 2015 2:09 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Caveat emptor: it also disables SMP.
>>
>> OK, I don't think it's interesting in that form.
>>
>> For small cpu counts, I guess we could have per-cpu syscall entry points
>> (unless the syscall entry msr is shared across hyperthreading? Some
>> msr's are per thread, others per core, AFAIK), and it could actually
>> work that way.
>>
>> But I'm not sure the three cycles is worth the worry and the complexity.
>>
>
> We discussed the per-cpu syscall entry point, and the issue at hand is
> that it is very hard to do that without with fairly high probability
> touch another cache line and quite possibly another page (and hence a
> TLB entry.)

I think this isn't actually true.  If we were going to do a per-cpu
syscall entry point, then we might as well duplicate all of the entry
code per cpu instead of just a short trampoline.  That would avoid
extra TLB misses and (L1) cache misses, I think.

I still think this is far too complicated for three cycles.  I was
hoping for more.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/