[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <451ADEE4.4010508@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:28:20 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Per-processor private data areas for i386
Pavel Machek wrote:
> So we have 4% slowdown...
>
Yes, that would be the worst-case slowdown in the hot-cache case.
Rearranging the layout of the GDT would remove any theoretical
cold-cache slowdown (I haven't measured if there's any impact in practice).
> ...and 0.2% smaller kernel. I guess you should demonstrate speedup at
> complex syscalls before wedecide it is worth it...
That would be nice, but this patch series isn't really intended to be a
performance improvement. That would be nice, but the main motivation is
to make inline assembler patching for the paravirt work cleaner.
Rusty and I have also been investigating how to use the %gs-based memory
to implement all percpu data, rather than the few special cases this
patch series currently covers, which will help further amortize the
entry/exit cost.
Rusty has also done more comprehensive benchmarks with his variant of
this patch series, and found no statistically interesting performance
difference. Which is pretty much what I would expect, since it doesn't
increase cache-misses at all.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists