[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190308205637.GC2482@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 21:56:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86/percpu semantics and fixes
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 07:35:17PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Nice script! I keep asking myself how comparing two binaries can provide
> some “number” to indicate how “good” the binary is (at least relatively to
> another one) - either during compilation or after. Code size, as you show,
> is the wrong metric.
Right; I'm still pondering other metrics, like:
readelf -WS | grep AX | grep -v -e init -e exit -e altinstr -e unlikely -e fixup
which is only 'fast' path text.
> Anyhow, I am a little disappointed (and surprised) that in most cases that I
> played with, this kind of optimizations have marginal impact on performance
> at best, even when the binary changes “a lot” and when microbenchmarks are
> used.
Right, but if we don't care, it'll be death by 1000 cuts.
Anyway, can anybody explain percpu_stable_op() vs percpu_from_op() ?
I'm thinking of a variant of Linus' patch, but I'm confused about the
above.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists