From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gleb Natapov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/12] Maintain preemptability count even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:58:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20091130105812.GG30150@redhat.com> References: <1258985167-29178-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1258985167-29178-11-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1258990455.4531.594.camel@laptop> <20091123155851.GU2999@redhat.com> <20091124071250.GC2999@redhat.com> <20091130105612.GF30150@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Zijlstra , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, riel@redhat.com To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091130105612.GF30150@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT case adding lots of code > > > > in critical paths all over the place. > > > I want to measure it. Can you suggest benchmarks to try? > > > > AIM9 (reaim9)? > Below are results for kernel 2.6.32-rc8 with and without the patch (only > this single patch is applied). > Forgot to tell. The results are average between 5 different runs. -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org