All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch, v2.6.22-rc6] sys_time() speedup
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:02:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46803B6E.6030804@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070625200601.GA18980@elte.hu>

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> Subject: [patch] sys_time() speedup
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> 
> improve performance of sys_time(). sys_time() returns time in seconds, 
> but it does so by calling do_gettimeofday() and then returning the 
> tv_sec portion of the GTOD time. But the data structure "xtime", which 
> is updated by every timer/scheduler tick, already offers HZ granularity 
> time.
> 
> the patch improves the sysbench OLTP macrobenchmark significantly:
> 
> 2.6.22-rc6:
> 
> #threads
>    1:        transactions:                        3733   (373.21 per sec.)
>    2:        transactions:                        6676   (667.46 per sec.)
>    3:        transactions:                        6957   (695.50 per sec.)
>    4:        transactions:                        7055   (705.48 per sec.)
>    5:        transactions:                        6596   (659.33 per sec.)
> 
> 2.6.22-rc6 + sys_time.patch:
> 
>    1:        transactions:                        4005   (400.47 per sec.)
>    2:        transactions:                        7379   (737.77 per sec.)
>    3:        transactions:                        7347   (734.49 per sec.)
>    4:        transactions:                        7468   (746.65 per sec.)
>    5:        transactions:                        7428   (742.47 per sec.)
> 
> mixed API uses of gettimeofday() and time() are guaranteed to be 
> coherent via the use of a at-most-once-per-second slowpath that updates 
> xtime.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
>  kernel/time.c |   27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux/kernel/time.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/time.c
> +++ linux/kernel/time.c
> @@ -57,14 +57,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sys_tz);
>   */
>  asmlinkage long sys_time(time_t __user * tloc)
>  {
> -	time_t i;
> -	struct timeval tv;
> +	/*
> +	 * We read xtime.tv_sec atomically - it's updated
> +	 * atomically by update_wall_time(), so no need to
> +	 * even read-lock the xtime seqlock:
> +	 */
> +	time_t i = xtime.tv_sec;
>  
> -	do_gettimeofday(&tv);
> -	i = tv.tv_sec;
> +	smp_rmb(); /* sys_time() results are coherent */
>  
>  	if (tloc) {
> -		if (put_user(i,tloc))
> +		if (put_user(i, tloc))
>  			i = -EFAULT;
>  	}
>  	return i;
> @@ -373,6 +376,20 @@ void do_gettimeofday (struct timeval *tv
>  
>  	tv->tv_sec = sec;
>  	tv->tv_usec = usec;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Make sure xtime.tv_sec [returned by sys_time()] always
> +	 * follows the gettimeofday() result precisely. This
> +	 * condition is extremely unlikely, it can hit at most
> +	 * once per second:
> +	 */

Unfortunatly, some arches (x86_64) can call both sys_time() and vgettimeofday().

And vgettimeofday() cannot update xtime (its mapped readonly in vsyscall 
page), so the coherency wont be guaranted.

Also, I thought glibc time(0) was calling gettimeofday() on x86_64, so I 
wonder on which machine you got your bench results.

Are you still using a 32 bits platform ? :)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-06-25 22:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-06-25 20:06 [patch, v2.6.22-rc6] sys_time() speedup Ingo Molnar
2007-06-25 21:09 ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-25 21:17   ` Jesper Juhl
2007-06-25 22:00     ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-25 22:20       ` Jesper Juhl
2007-06-25 22:49         ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-26 16:18         ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-26 16:39           ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-26 16:49           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 17:13             ` Ray Lee
2007-06-27  0:15               ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 17:08           ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-26 17:35             ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-25 22:15   ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-26  2:20     ` Stephen Rothwell
2007-06-26 15:26     ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-26 17:14       ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-27  0:22         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 15:43     ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 17:36     ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-25 22:02 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2007-06-26  0:22 ` Mark Lord
2007-06-26 14:58   ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-26 16:59     ` john stultz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=46803B6E.6030804@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.