On 08.03.2019 10:59, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 09:49:21AM +0000, maya%netbsd.org@localhost wrote: >> The proposed options for this scenario (judging by the Darwin code) are: >> Go code -> Go ABI to C ABI translation -> syscall stub in libc -> syscall >> >> vs. >> Go code -> Go ABI syscall stub -> syscall > > There is missing the system call specific stuff between the first two > links here, and the Go-ABI-to-system-call-abi translation in the second one, > so it is not clear at all to me which method would perform better. > > All these layers/shims are pretty tiny, so I wouldn't be suprised if there > would be no measurable difference (but I'd love to see hard numbers). > The usage of syscall(2)/__syscall(2) might have tiny overhead on the kernel side when compared to direct syscalls. In the end difference is most likely negligible.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature