[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245093011.6741.213.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:10:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"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
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 21:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> But one thing is sure: it is certainly going to be faster than the
> INVLPG(s!) we have to do with the GUP solution.
Sure, but we only pay that price when we do the callchain bit, not on
every NMI.
--
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