Re: kernel: ldt allocation failed

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:39:48 +0000 (GMT)

> Are you sure it does? LGDT with non zero argument shouldn't be that costly.
> The %fs switching adds some locked cycles for reloading the segment cache,
> but because Windows uses that I would it expect to be reasonably optimized
> on CPUs.

Its measurable, even on an Athlon.

> I actually tried to complain because on x86-64 it is more costly, but to
> no avail.

The more I see from glibc the more I realise that Linus is right - it needs
replacing

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