On Apr 26, 2007, at 3:24 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2007-Apr-25 01:03:19 -0700, Suleiman Souhlal > <ssouhlal_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> IMHO, the main usage of the global readonly page is (apart from >> faster gettimeofday and similar) is that you can put the syscall >> entry function in it, and have the kernel choose at boot the most >> efficient method (INT 0x80 or SYSENTER/SYSCALL) based on what the CPU >> supports, while still having binaries that run everywhere. > > That's a nice idea. The only downside I see is that it means the > page would need to be executable. I would prefer not to have > data areas executable - even if they are read-only. Why not? > I think that FreeBSD should make more use of CPU-specific coding to > enhance performance. Maybe even something along the lines of Solaris > where linking to libc implicitly links to a CPU-specific .so if it > exists. I have a proof of concept patch that enables the kernel to patch itself at boot to use certain instructions in certain selected places based on the CPUID bits: http://people.freebsd.org/~ssouhlal/testing/ bootpatch-20060527.diff . The patch just prefetches the next element in a list when using TAILQ/STAILQ/etc_FOREACH() (which is pretty useless), using the PREFETCHNTA instruction if the CPU supports SSE2 and PREFETCH otherwise, but it could also be used for potentially more useful things like using *FENCE instructions in atomic_store/load_rel/acq_* () when the CPU supports them, instead of LOCK, on i386.. -- SuleimanReceived on Thu Apr 26 2007 - 11:17:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:09 UTC