Ingo Molnar wrote: > but i'm a bit worried about the apparent fact that adding 200 more > symbols (and making the vDSO a real DSO in essence) to abstract the > kernel syscalls is apparently unacceptable performance-wise. If this is > true then the whole dynamic linking architecture is much slower than it > should be, isnt it? If the syscall entry code in the vdso takes care of the multiplexing we do not have to add any symbols to the vdso's symbol table. There are no additional costs associated with adding more optimized syscalls other than the multiplexer and that cost would be constant if a jump table is used. For now, the simple single cmpl is sufficient. -- Ulrich Drepper Red Hat, Inc. 444 Castro St Mountain View, CA - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchjohn stultz
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchUlrich Drepper
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchJamie Lokier
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchUlrich Drepper
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchJamie Lokier
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchUlrich Drepper
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchJamie Lokier
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchUlrich Drepper
- Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patchIngo Molnar
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch
- Next by Date: Re: FYI: ACPI 'sleep 1' resets atkbd keycodes
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.2-rc2_vsyscall-gtod_B1.patch
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]