lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels


On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> "possible"? You mean "acceptable". Gray, not black and white.

I don't think we can possibly claim to support UP configurations if we
don't patch.

> 1) Where's the line?

"As good as we can make it". There is no line. There's "your code sucks so
badly that it needs to get fixed, or we'll rip it out or disable it".

> 2) Where are we? Does patching claw back 5% of the loss? 50%? 90%?

On some things, especially on P4, the lock overhead was tens of percent.
Just a single locked instruction takes closer to two hundred instructions.

Of course, on those P4's, just kernel entry/exit is pretty high too (even
with sysenter/exit), so I doubt you'll ever see something be 90% just
because of that, unless it causes extra IO or other non-CPU issues.

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-18 23:28    [W:0.078 / U:0.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site