[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A161E55.4040401@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 20:39:01 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Li, Xin" <xin.li@...el.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified
Xin, Xiaohui wrote:
> Remember we have done one experiment with "jump", the result shows seems the overhead is even more than the call.
I didn't, no. That seems extremely weird to me.
(Unbalancing the call/ret stack is known to suck royally, of course.)
>>>
>>>
>> Can't those calls be changed to jumps?
>>
>
> In this specific instance of this example, yes. But if you start
> enabling various spinlock debug options then there'll be code following
> the call. It would be hard for the runtime patching machinery to know
> when it would be safe to do the substitution.
>
When there is code after the call, it's rather obviously not safe.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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