From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754534Ab1FHJP6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2011 05:15:58 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51203 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752261Ab1FHJP4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2011 05:15:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 11:15:31 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: pageexec@freemail.hu Cc: Andrew Lutomirski , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl , Borislav Petkov , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Jan Beulich , richard -rw- weinberger , Mikael Pettersson , Andi Kleen , Brian Gerst , Louis Rilling , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] x86-64: Emulate legacy vsyscalls Message-ID: <20110608091531.GA8761@elte.hu> References: <4DEEB31B.3353.19E649C2@pageexec.freemail.hu> <20110608064857.GA6747@elte.hu> <4DEF3A93.8871.1BF773E2@pageexec.freemail.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DEF3A93.8871.1BF773E2@pageexec.freemail.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * pageexec@freemail.hu wrote: > On 8 Jun 2011 at 8:48, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > you seemed to have made a distinction, you tell me ;), [...] > > > > I have not made any distinction at all, *you* wrote: > > i asked you that question because for all this time you seemed to > have been very worked up by the fact that i called the page fault > path as not 'fast'. i thought maybe what caused your nervous > reaction and desperate attempts at trying to justify it was due to > some misunderstanding in wording, but i now see that we probably > talked about the same thing. with the exception that you *still* > have not provided any evidence for your claim. why is that Ingo? do > you have nothing to prove your single cycle 'improvemnt'? (sorry, > had a chuckle again ;). You are again trying to shift the topic. Your original claim, which you snipped from your reply: > a page fault is never a fast path is simply ridiculous on its face and crazy talk, and no amount of insults you hurl at me will change that fact - you ignored the various pieces of evidence that i cited that the page fault code is very much a fastpath: past commits, cycles estimations, a list of various (obvious) types of impact, the statements of several prominent kernel developers (including Linus) that establish that the page fault path is very much treated as a fastpath by everyone who develops it and you also ignored the fact that there's a working alternative that has none of those disadvantages. Thanks, Ingo