[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200906071023.04789.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 10:23:02 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Gerd Knorr <kraxel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 12:24:43 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Distributions don't ship UP kernels any more; this shows what that costs
> > if you're actually on a UP box. If we really don't care, perhaps we
> > should make CONFIG_SMP=n an option under EMBEDDED for x86. And we can
> > rip out the complex patching SMP patching stuff too.
>
> The complex SMP patching is what makes it _possible_ to not ship UP
> kernels any more.
"possible"? You mean "acceptable". Gray, not black and white.
1) Where's the line?
2) Where are we? Does patching claw back 5% of the loss? 50%? 90%?
No point benchmarking on my (SMP) laptop for this one. Gerd cc'd, maybe he
has benchmarks from when he did the work originally?
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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