Yeah, I would agree that is a fair take on standard kernel syscall latency. My original point was just clarifying that batching the syscalls only saves the over

Yeah, I would agree that is a fair take on standard kernel syscall latency. My original point was just clarifying that batching the syscalls only saves the overhead, not the shepherding and actual work of the syscall, and is actually much smaller than people generally believe. An interesting thing about your second point is that those overhead costs are almost entirely driven by the software scheduler implementation. The actual hardware costs are actually quite low and in theory it should be possible to meaningfully switch if you could just determine what to run next quickly as discussed here [1]. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/22/1202 https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/22/1202