[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170208190508.GA6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 20:05:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a
callee-save function
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:24PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk
> on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were
> as follows:
>
> 71.27% 0.28% fio [k] down_write
> 70.99% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed
> 69.43% 1.18% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed
> 65.51% 54.57% fio [k] osq_lock
> 9.72% 7.99% fio [k] __raw_callee_save___kvm_vcpu_is_preempted
> 4.16% 4.16% fio [k] __kvm_vcpu_is_preempted
>
> So making vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function has a pretty high
> cost associated with it. As vcpu_is_preempted() is called within the
> spinlock, mutex and rwsem slowpaths, there isn't much to gain by making
> it callee-save. So it is now changed to a normal function call instead.
>
Numbers for bare metal too please.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists