[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081104171346.GF21470@localhost>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 20:13:46 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, lguest@...abs.org,
jeremy@...source.com, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes
[Ingo Molnar - Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 05:58:11PM +0100]
|
| * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
|
| > [Alexander van Heukelum - Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 05:23:09PM +0100]
| > ...
| > |
| > | I did some timings using the little program below (32-bit only), doing
| > | 1024 times the same sequence. TEST1 is just pushing a constant onto
| > | the stack; TEST2 is pushing the cs register; TEST3 is the sequence
| > | from the patch to extract the vector number from the cs register.
| > |
| > | Opteron (cycles): 1024 / 1157 / 3527
| > | Xeon E5345 (cycles): 1092 / 1085 / 6622
| > | Athlon XP (cycles): 1028 / 1166 / 5192
| >
| > Xeon is defenitely out of luck :-)
|
| it's still OK - i.e. no outrageous showstopper overhead anywhere in
| that instruction sequence. The total round-trip overhead is what will
| matter most.
|
| Ingo
|
Don't get me wrong please, I really like what Alexander have done!
But frankly six time slower is a bit scarying me.
- Cyrill -
--
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