[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de16de12-fa1a-666c-ea19-fea5d096c1ca@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:38:59 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] softirq: implement IRQ flood detection mechanism
On 9/4/19 10:31 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/09/2019 19:07, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> Only if CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING has been enabled. However, I don't
>> know any Linux distro that enables that option. That's probably because
>> that option introduces two rdtsc() calls in each interrupt. Given the
>> overhead introduced by this option, I don't think this is the solution
>> Ming is looking for.
>
> Was this overhead reported somewhere ?
I think it is widely known that rdtsc is a relatively slow x86
instruction. So I expect that using that instruction will cause a
measurable overhead if it is called frequently enough. I'm not aware of
any publicly available measurement data however.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists