[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160813184534.GA15037@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 20:45:34 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] x86: Rewrite switch_to()
* Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> >> This patch set simplifies the switch_to() code, by moving the stack switch
> >> code out of line into an asm stub before calling __switch_to(). This ends
> >> up being more readable, and using the C calling convention instead of
> >> clobbering all registers improves code generation. It also allows newly
> >> forked processes to construct a special stack frame to seamlessly flow
> >> to ret_from_fork, instead of using a test and branch, or an unbalanced
> >> call/ret.
> >
> > Do you have performance numbers? Is it noticeable/measurable?
>
> How do I measure it? The perf documentation isn't easy to understand.
Something like this:
taskset 1 perf stat -a -e '{instructions,cycles}' --repeat 10 perf bench sched pipe
... will give a very good idea about the general impact of these changes on
context switch overhead.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists