[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317938775.4729.29.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:06:13 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@...hat.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
Jan Glauber <jang@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] jump_label: if a key has already been
initialized, don't nop it out
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 14:42 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 12:28 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> (2) Always reserve 5 bytes of space, but if the distance is small enough
> >> patch in a 2-byte jump. That doesn't help with the icache footprint.
> > I don't think this one is worth it.
>
> I disagree. This is what I benchmarked as having a 5% improvement. If
> squashing out the padding helps, then that's a separate optimisation.
But it only speeds up the tracing case. The non-tracing case is a nop
and 5bytes is 5bytes regardless.
Did you see a 5% speed up while tracing was happening? How did you do
your test. I find a 5 byte compared to a 2 byte jump being negligible
with the rest of the overhead of tracing, but I could be wrong.
-- Steve
--
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