[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190904180211.GX2332@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 20:02:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.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 Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 10:38:59AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> 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.
https://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
RDTSC, Ryzen: ~36
RDTSC, Skylake: ~20
Sadly those same tables don't list the cost of actual exceptions or even
IRET :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists