From: "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC/HACK] x86: Fast return to kernel
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 12:59:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53669C32.2010601@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140504184016.GA16438@gmail.com>
On 05/04/2014 11:40 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>>> That said, regular *device* interrupts do often return to kernel
>>> mode (the idle loop in particular), so if you have any way to
>>> measure that, that might be interesting, and might show some of
>>> the same advantages.
>>
>> I can try something awful involving measuring latency of
>> hardware-timed packets on a SolarFlare card, but I'll have
>> calibration issues. I suppose I could see if 'ping' gets faster.
>> In general, this will speed up interrupts that wake userspace from
>> idle by about 100ns on my box, since it's presumably the same size
>> and the speedup per loop in my silly benchmark.
>
> To simulate high rate device IRQ you can generate very high frequency
> lapic IRQs by using hrtimers, that's generating a ton of per CPU lapic
> IRQs.
>
The bigger question is if that helps in measuring the actual latency.
It should get more data points, to be sure.
Maybe let userspace sit in a tight loop doing RDTSC, and look for data
points too far apart to have been uninterrupted?
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-04 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-02 19:04 [RFC/HACK] x86: Fast return to kernel Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-02 19:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 19:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-04 18:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-05-04 19:59 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2014-05-04 21:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-04 22:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 20:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 20:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-02 21:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 21:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-02 21:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 21:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 21:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-02 21:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 21:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-04 23:46 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-04 23:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 20:19 ` Steven Rostedt
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=53669C32.2010601@intel.com \
--to=h.peter.anvin@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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.