[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A084426.2080604@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:28:38 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@....com>,
Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][KVM][retry 1] Add support for Pause Filtering to AMD
SVM
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I.e. the 3000 cycles value itself could be eliminated as well.
>>> (with just a common-sense max of say 100,000 cycles enforced)
>>>
>> Yeah, though that has a much smaller effect as it's only
>> responsible for a few microseconds of spinning.
>>
>
> 3000 cycles would be 1-2 usecs. Isnt the VM exit+entry cost still in
> that range?
>
It's 3000 executions of rep nop, so you need to account for the entire
spinlock loop body.
The Linux spinlock is
"1:\t"
"cmpl %0, %2\n\t"
"je 2f\n\t"
"rep ; nop\n\t"
"movzwl %1, %2\n\t"
/* don't need lfence here, because loads are in-order */
"jmp 1b\n"
5 instructions, maybe 2-3 cycles, not counting any special rep nop
overhead. Mark, any idea what the spin time is?
VM entry/exit is around 1us on the newer processors.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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