[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150501163431.GB1327@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 18:34:32 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, williams@...hat.com,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, fweisbec@...hat.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] context_tracking,x86: remove extraneous irq disable
& enable from context tracking on syscall entry
* Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> > I can understand people running hard-RT workloads not wanting to
> > see the overhead of a timer tick or a scheduler tick with variable
> > (and occasionally heavy) work done in IRQ context, but the jitter
> > caused by a single trivial IPI with constant work should be very,
> > very low and constant.
>
> Not if the realtime workload is running inside a KVM guest.
I don't buy this:
> At that point an IPI, either on the host or in the guest, involves a
> full VMEXIT & VMENTER cycle.
So a full VMEXIT/VMENTER costs how much, 2000 cycles? That's around 1
usec on recent hardware, and I bet it will get better with time.
I'm not aware of any hard-RT workload that cannot take 1 usec
latencies.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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