[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874les85iu.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 17:26:01 +0200
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Matt Rickard <matt@...trans.com.au>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 10/11] x86/vdso: Move cycle_last handling into the caller
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> Dereferencing gtod->cycle_last all over the place and foing the cycles <
> last comparison in the vclock read functions generates horrible code. Doing
> it at the call site is much better and gains a few cycles both for TSC and
> pvclock.
>
> Caveat: This adds the comparison to the hyperv vclock as well, but I have
> no way to test that.
While the change looks obviously correct for Hyper-V vclock too, by saying
that you encouraged me to give the whole series a shot. I did and turns
out Hyper-V vclock is broken: simple clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, )
test goes from 70 cpu cycles to 1000 (meaning that we're falling back to
syscall I guess). Bisecting now, stay tuned!
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists