[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090609145736.GA31535@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:57:36 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
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>
Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native
kernels
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I was benchmarking btrfs on my little EeePC. There, kmap overhead
> was 25% of file access time. Part of it is that people have been
> taught to use "kmap_atomic()", which is usable under spinlocks and
> people have been told that it's "fast". It's not fast. The whole
> TLB thing is slow as hell.
yeah. I noticed it some time ago that INVLPG is unreasonably slow.
My theory is that in the CPU it's perhaps a loop (in microcode?)
over _all_ TLBs - so as TLB caches get larger, INVLPG gets slower
and slower ...
Ingo
--
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