[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWxziEYyGrujXWScAfNsw2nWGMVEPRK-ck2Rniktjhpfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:42:36 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Kernel-team@...com,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] X86: Add a thread cpu time implementation to vDSO
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 09:07:49AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Re-asking my old question: would it make sense to add a vdso helper
>> for the magic self-monitoring interface? Or, at the very least, we
>> could try to tidy up the docs a bit.
>
> I find it really helps (performance wise) to strip down that magic to
> the bare minimum required.
>
> A VDSO helper would always have to do everything. I suppose we could
> provide a generic helper, one can always hand code the stuff anyhow.
>
> Then again, what is the benefit of having it in the VDSO as opposed to a
> regular DSO?
The benefit of using the VDSO is that it means that we can change the
data structure whenever we want. The __vdso_clock_gettime data
structure changes on a somewhat regular basis.
Other than that, a regular DSO is somewhat easier.
>
> Updating the docs is always good.
:)
--Andy
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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