[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVrkBBYA+z6ecm6CuOGszsi=WyX6K1oVBCX6age9LUTrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:19:30 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] PCID and improved laziness
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> There are three performance benefits here:
>
> Side note: can you post the actual performance numbers, even if only
> from some silly test program on just one platform? Things like lmbench
> pipe benchmark or something?
>
> Or maybe you did, and I just missed it. But when talking about
> performance, I'd really like to always see some actual numbers.
Here are some timings using KVM:
pingpong between two processes using eventfd:
patched: 883ns
unpatched: 1046ns (with considerably higher variance)
madvise(MADV_DONTNEED); write to the page; switch CPUs:
patched: ~12.5us
unpatched: 19us
The latter test is a somewhat contrived example to show off the
improved laziness. Current kernels send an IPI on each iteration if
the system is otherwise idle.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists