[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090615190321.GA11641@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:03:21 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
vegard.nossum@...il.com, efault@....de, jeremy@...p.org,
npiggin@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Fix call-chain
support to use NMI-safe methods
* Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra (a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl) wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 14:48 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > we should not care that much about the performance hit of
> > > saving/restoring the cr2 register at each nmi entry/exit.
> >
> > But we do, perf counters very much cares about nmi performance.
> >
>
> To a point where it cannot afford a simple register save/restore ?
>
> There is "caring" and "_caring_". I am tempted to ask what NMI
> handler execution frequency you have in mind here to figure out if
> we are not trying to optimize sub-nanoseconds per minutes. ;)
I routinely run 'perf' with half a million NMIs per second or more.
( Why wait 10 seconds for a profile you can get in 1 second? ;-)
Granted that is over multiple CPUs - but still performance does
matter here too.
Reading cr2 is certainly fast. Writing it - dunno.
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