[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090615204715.GA24554@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:47:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
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:
> In the category "crazy ideas one should never express out loud", I
> could add the following. We could choose to save/restore the cr2
> register on the local stack at every interrupt entry/exit, and
> therefore allow the page fault handler to execute with interrupts
> enabled.
>
> I have not benchmarked the interrupt disabling overhead of the
> page fault handler handled by starting an interrupt-gated handler
> rather than trap-gated handler, but cli/sti instructions are known
> to take quite a few cycles on some architectures. e.g. 131 cycles
> for the pair on P4, 23 cycles on AMD Athlon X2 64, 43 cycles on
> Intel Core2.
The cost on Nehalem (1 billion local_irq_save()+restore() pairs):
aldebaran:~> perf stat --repeat 5 ./prctl 0 0
Performance counter stats for './prctl 0 0' (5 runs):
10950.813461 task-clock-msecs # 0.997 CPUs ( +- 1.594% )
3 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
1 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
145 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.000% )
33946294720 cycles # 3099.888 M/sec ( +- 1.132% )
8030365827 instructions # 0.237 IPC ( +- 0.006% )
100933 cache-references # 0.009 M/sec ( +- 12.568% )
27250 cache-misses # 0.002 M/sec ( +- 3.897% )
10.985768499 seconds time elapsed.
That's 33.9 cycles per iteration, with a 1.1% confidence factor.
Annotation gives this result:
2.24 : ffffffff810535e5: 9c pushfq
8.58 : ffffffff810535e6: 58 pop %rax
10.99 : ffffffff810535e7: fa cli
20.38 : ffffffff810535e8: 50 push %rax
0.00 : ffffffff810535e9: 9d popfq
46.71 : ffffffff810535ea: ff c6 inc %esi
0.42 : ffffffff810535ec: 3b 35 72 31 76 00 cmp 0x763172(%rip),%e
10.69 : ffffffff810535f2: 7c f1 jl ffffffff810535e5
0.00 : ffffffff810535f4: e9 7c 01 00 00 jmpq ffffffff81053775
i.e. pushfq+cli is roughly 42.19% or 14 cycles, the popfq is 46.71
or 16 cycles. So the combo cost is 30 cycles, +- 1 cycle.
(Actual effective cost in a real critical section can be better than
this, dependent on surrounding instructions.)
It got quite a bit faster than Core2 - but still not as fast as AMD.
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