[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 21:22:25 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 207/208] x86/fpu: Add FPU performance measurement
subsystem
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 05/05/2015 10:58 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > x86/fpu: Cost of: XSAVE insn : 104 cycles
> > x86/fpu: Cost of: XRSTOR insn : 80 cycles
>
> Isn't there going to be pretty huge variability here depending on how
> much state you are xsave/xrstor'ing and if the init/modified
> optimizations are in play?
If this is a module, one could modprobe/rmmod it multiple times for
an average. But yeah, it would depend in the end on what the system
does/has been doing in the recent past and thus how much state has been
"accumulated".
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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