[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E8E275F.6010801@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:10:39 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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 10/06/2011 03:06 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
You're right, this was a completely artificial microbenchmark. In
practice the improvement would be a much smaller effect.
But bear in mind, I'm not using jump-label for tracing. While its
important for the "disabled" state to be quick, performance of the
"enabled" state is also important.
Thanks,
J
--
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