[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.56.0804132320260.6537@keg.few.vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:51:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Erik Bosman <ejbosman@...vu.nl>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...share.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: Implement prctl PR_GET_TSC and PR_SET_TSC
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I also saw no mention about performance impact, which need to be
> considered whenever *anything* is proposed to be inserted into a hot
> path. It may be (heck, *should be*) that the performance impact isn't
> measurable, but that needs to be positively established.
>
> -hpa
>
It took me a while, but I have done some tests om my system with and
without my patch applied.
All deamons but klogd/syslogd were shut down andI used the following
command:
LMBENCH_SCHED="SINGLE" \
/usr/lib/lmbench/bin/{i686-pc,x86_64}-linux-gnu/lat_ctx -s 0 2
The variation was quite high so I ran it a 1000 times for each
configuration.
x86_32, patch applied, 1000x repeated, avg: 1.319, rmse: 0.081
x86_32, patch not applied, 1000x repeated, avg: 1.335, rmse: 0.107
x86_64, patch applied, 1000x repeated, avg: 1.417, rmse: 0.0716
x86_64, patch not applied, 1000x repeated, avg: 1.423, rmse: 0.0745
This is on a core 2 duo E6300.
Erik
--
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