[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A172B69.2000709@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:47:05 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: "Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>,
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
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> I did a quick experiment to see how many sites this optimisation could
> actually affect. Firstly, it does absolutely nothing with frame
> pointers enabled. Arranging for no frame pointers is quite tricky,
> since it means disabling all debugging, tracing and other things.
>
> With no frame pointers, its about 26 of 5400 indirect calls are
> immediately followed by ret (not all of those sites are pvops calls).
> With preempt disabled, this goes up to 45 sites.
>
> I haven't done any actual runtime tests, but a quick survey of the
> affected sites shows that only a couple are performance-sensitive;
> _spin_lock and _spin_lock_irq and _spin_lock_irqsave are the most obvious.
>
OK, that doesn't seem like a very productive avenue. Problem still
remains, obviously.
-hpa
--
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