lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/4] clock_gettime_ns and x86-64 optimizations
On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 08:50:59AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On x86-64, clock_gettime is so fast that the overhead converting to and
> from nanoseconds is non-negligible. clock_gettime_ns is a different and
> faster interface.

But your data contradict this statement. See below.

> Patch 1 adds the syscall and wires it up on x86-64. Patch 2 implements
> the corresponding vdso entry on x86-64. Patch 3 optimizes the vdso
> call, and patch 4 is a trivial change that speeds up the vdso
> clock_gettime and clock_gettime_ns implementations.
>
> The vdso timings are (on an 800MHz Sandy Bridge mobile):

It would be more informative to describe how you made the measurements
in more detail, for example, pseudo code, number of trials, min, max,
mean, std. dev.

> Basic implementation:
>
> realtime 77.4ns
> monotonic 79.2ns
> realtime_coarse 18.1ns
> monotonic_coarse 22.0ns

In order to better understand what you are reporting, I arranged your
numbers into a table:

1. Basic implementation
2. Optimized implementation
3. Inlined (patch 4)

|---------------------+-------+-------+-------|
| | 1. | 2. | 3. |
|---------------------+-------+-------+-------|
| realtime | 77.40 | 78.50 | 73.40 |
| realtime_ns | 84.90 | 77.85 | 73.15 |
|---------------------+-------+-------+-------|
| monotonic | 79.20 | 77.40 | 72.10 |
| monotonic_ns | 85.10 | 77.75 | 72.10 |
|---------------------+-------+-------+-------|
| realtime_coarse | 18.10 | 18.40 | 13.20 |
| realtime_coarse_ns | 19.49 | 18.20 | 14.10 |
|---------------------+-------+-------+-------|
| monotonic_coarse | 22.00 | 19.40 | 15.80 |
| monotonic_coarse_ns | 27.32 | 18.20 | 15.60 |
|---------------------+-------+-------+-------|

Looking down column 3, it appears that the _ns calls are no faster
than their plain counterparts.

So, while the inline patch does improve performance, the new _ns
functions do not really seem worth the trouble.

Thanks,
Richard




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-27 08:49    [W:0.271 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site