[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1158166a0910080612h29d93d50y875d5305cd4d985f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:12:08 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] store-free path walking
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> This, btw, is exactly the kind of thing we saw with some of the
> non-temporal work, when we used nontemporal stores to copy pages on COW
> faults, or when doing pre-zeroing of pages. You get rid of some of the
> hot-spots in the kernel, and you then replace them with user space taking
> the cache misses in random spots instead. The kernel profile looks better,
> and system time may go down, but actual performace never went down - you
> just moved your cache miss cost from one place to another.
A few years ago when K7s were not ancient yet, after hearing
argument for and against non-temporal stores,
I decided to finally figure it for myself.
I tested kernel build workload on two kernels with the only
one difference - clear_page with and without non-temporal stores.
"Non-temporal stores" kernel was faster, not slower. Just a little bit,
but reproducibly.
--
vda
--
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