[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef760f3b926747598051c848ba85c4a8@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:58:44 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
"oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev" <oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>,
"lkp@...el.com" <lkp@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"feng.tang@...el.com" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
"fengwei.yin@...el.com" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [linus:master] [iov_iter] c9eec08bac: vm-scalability.throughput
-16.9% regression
...
> Of course, it's also possible that with all the function call overhead
> introduced by the CPU mitigations on older CPU's, we should just say
> "rep movsb" is always correct - if you have a new CPU with FSRM it's
> good, and if you have an old CPU it's no worse than the horrendous CPU
> mitigation overhead for function call/returns.
Unless you are stupid enough to use a P4 :-)
I actually doubt anyone cares (esp. for 64bit) about any
cpu that don't optimise long 'rep movsb' (pre sandy bridge).
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists