[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <551EE4BE.9090507@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:06:38 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: pack interrupt dispatch table tighter
On 04/03/2015 11:37 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> For the record, I actually measured the impact of the jump-to-jump when
>> I wrote it. It has a small, *but measurable*, positive impact.
>
> What did you compare against, and how did you measure that? I don't
> see how it could *possibly* be faster than just a simple aligned "push
> + jmp".
>
I wish I remembered the exact details; it took a fair bit of gathering
numbers as the spread was quite a bit wider than the delta, but in the
end there were two distribution peaks clearly offset.
I seem to remember it involving a loop running RDTSC continuously and
another RDTSC in the interrupt path.
-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