lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RT 00/02] SLOB optimizations

* Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

> >in any case, on sane platforms (i386, x86_64) an irq-disable is
> >well-optimized in hardware, and is just as fast as a preempt_disable().
>
> I'm afraid its not the case on current hardware.
>
> The irq enable/disable pair count for more than 50% the cpu time spent
> in kmem_cache_alloc()/kmem_cache_free()/kfree()

because you are not using NMI based profiling?

> oprofile results on a dual Opteron 246 :
>
> You can see the high profile numbers right after cli and popf(sti)
> instructions, popf being VERY expensive.

that's just the profiling interrupt hitting them. You should not analyze
irq-safe code with a non-NMI profiling interrupt.

CLI/STI is extremely fast. (In fact in the -rt tree i'm using them
within mutexes instead of preempt_enable()/preempt_disable(), because
they are faster and generate less register side-effect.)

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-12-22 22:15    [W:0.245 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site