[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53669C32.2010601@intel.com>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 12:59:46 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC/HACK] x86: Fast return to kernel
On 05/04/2014 11:40 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>>> That said, regular *device* interrupts do often return to kernel
>>> mode (the idle loop in particular), so if you have any way to
>>> measure that, that might be interesting, and might show some of
>>> the same advantages.
>>
>> I can try something awful involving measuring latency of
>> hardware-timed packets on a SolarFlare card, but I'll have
>> calibration issues. I suppose I could see if 'ping' gets faster.
>> In general, this will speed up interrupts that wake userspace from
>> idle by about 100ns on my box, since it's presumably the same size
>> and the speedup per loop in my silly benchmark.
>
> To simulate high rate device IRQ you can generate very high frequency
> lapic IRQs by using hrtimers, that's generating a ton of per CPU lapic
> IRQs.
>
The bigger question is if that helps in measuring the actual latency.
It should get more data points, to be sure.
Maybe let userspace sit in a tight loop doing RDTSC, and look for data
points too far apart to have been uninterrupted?
-hpa
--
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