[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090603150657.0a60a474@dhcp-lab-109.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 15:06:57 +0200
From: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend5 4/4] cputime: optimize jiffies_to_cputime(1)
Hi.
> > This patch (with 3 previous) was compiled on x86, x86_64, ppc with
> > CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTNG=n, ppc64 with CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y.
> > Run time testing was done only on x86.
I tested patches on ppc64 with CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y . Additionally I
measure impact of iffies_to_cputime(1) to cputime_one_jiffiy conversion on
check_cpu_itimer() calls with below code:
+ xstart = get_cycles();
+ barrier();
check_cpu_itimer(tsk, &sig->it[CPUCLOCK_PROF], &prof_expires, ptime,
SIGPROF);
check_cpu_itimer(tsk, &sig->it[CPUCLOCK_VIRT], &virt_expires, utime,
SIGVTALRM);
+ barrier();
+ xend = get_cycles();
+ check_cpu_itimer_cycles += xend - xstart;
+ check_cpu_itimer_n++;
Using cputime_one_jiffy was about 4% faster.
Cheers
Stanislaw
--
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