[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250316105316.GAZ9atnKtYqZjvS4JY@fat_crate.local>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 11:53:16 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm: Use asm_inline() instead of asm() in
amd_clear_divider()
On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 01:37:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Yeah, so that's a suboptimal test for these particular changes really:
> why would a simple CPU-saturated kernel build with low levels of kernel
> use of the affected areas show measurable changes with this commit?
Thus "Or maybe I need a different benchmark." :)
OTOH, it still tells me that if there are no negative changes in *that*
benchmark, then I should not worry.
> So on my system there appears to be a measurable improvement in
> performance on this particular benchmark on the order of magnitude of
> around ~0.8%, which is outside the measurement noise of around ~0.2%.
That's fine. It won't make me fall off my horse but sure, there are some small
improvements. Just don't let code readability suffer along the way with those
exercises.
:-)
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists