lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels
Date
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:32:14 am Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I think your minimum and maximum configs should at least _match_ in
> HIGHMEM. Limiting memory to not actually having any (with "mem=880M") will
> avoid the TLB flushing impact of HIGHMEM, which is clearly going to be the
> _bulk_ of the overhead, but HIGHMEM is still going to be noticeable on at
> least some microbenchmarks.

Well, Ingo was ranting because (paraphrase) "no other config option when
*unused* has as much impact as CONFIG_PARAVIRT!!!!!!!!!!".

That was the point of my mail; facts show it's simply untrue.

> The comparison is ugly and pointless.
(Re: SMP)

Distributions don't ship UP kernels any more; this shows what that costs if
you're actually on a UP box. If we really don't care, perhaps we should make
CONFIG_SMP=n an option under EMBEDDED for x86. And we can rip out the complex
patching SMP patching stuff too.

> Something like CONFIG_HIGHMEM* or CONFIG_SMP is not really what I'd ever
> call "optional feature", although I hope to Dog that CONFIG_HIGHMEM can
> some day be considered that some day.

Someone from a distro might know how many deployed machines don't need them.
Kernel hackers tend to have modern machines; same with "enterprise" sites. I
have no idea.

Without those facts, I'll leave further discussion to someone else :)

Thanks,
Rusty.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-05 06:49    [W:0.252 / U:2.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site