[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091026160509.GA8755@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:05:09 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Pierre-Marc Fournier <pierre-marc.fournier@...ymtl.ca>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, GeunSik Lim <leemgs1@...il.com>,
Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>,
Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinderrajput@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dominique Toupin <dominique.toupin@...csson.com>,
Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: Relicensing tracepoints and markers to Dual LGPL v2.1/GPL
v2,headers to Dual BSD/GPL
* Arjan van de Ven (arjan@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:17:49 -0400
> Pierre-Marc Fournier <pierre-marc.fournier@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > But i also disagree with it on a technical level: code duplication
> > > is _bad_. Why does the code have to be duplicated in user-space
> > > like that? I'd like Linux tracing code to be in the kernel repo.
> > > Why isnt this done properly, as part of the kernel project - to
> > > make sure it all stays in sync?
> > >
> >
> > If you mean that this code should solely be used inside the kernel,
> > then what you propose technically does not work. There is a very high
> > cost to accessing kernel code from userspace.
>
> yeah 100 cycles is insanely high, that's at least the equivalent of...
> say one cache miss.
>
Hi Arjan,
Maybe it's just me, but if you are talking of system calls performed
with sysenter, my own machine (with an Intel Xeon E5405 CPU) seems to
disagree with your estimations:
For a system call doing basically _nothing_:
Cache-cold system call:
Time for a system call (returns after a simple test) :
TSC diff : 6426 cycles
time diff : 3212.53 ns
Cache-hot system call:
Time for system call (10000 calls) (returns after a simple test) :
TSC diff : 599.893 cycles per call
time diff : 299.903 ns per call
Otherwise, if you are instead referring to a vDSO, then the contexts is
slightly different, and it becomes cheaper, but it does not allow to
share code as much between the in-kernel and vDSO implementations,
mainly due to different locking required. Moreover, I wonder about the
maximum vDSO size that can be ported across multiple architectures. It
has only been used for really tiny pieces of code so far.
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> --
> Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
> For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
> visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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