[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070214234417.GA16332@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 00:44:17 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 05/11] syslets: core code
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > case. (but with some crazier hacks i got the one-shot atom overhead
> > [compared to a simple synchronous null syscall] to below 10 nsecs,
> > so there's room in there for further optimizations. Our current null
> > syscall latency is around ~150 nsecs.)
>
> You are not counting the whole setup cost there, then, because your
> setup cost is going to be at a minimum more expensive than the null
> system call.
hm, this one-time cost was never on my radar. [ It's really dwarved by
other startup costs (a single fork() takes 100 usecs, an exec() takes
800 usecs.) ]
In any case, we can delay this cost into the first cachemiss, or can
eliminate it by making it a globally pooled thing. It does not seem like
a big issue.
Ingo
-
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