From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: MMU: Separate trivial NULL check out from rmap_get_next()
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:01:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F61DA07.4010200@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120315191553.32d6fc36.yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
On 03/15/2012 12:15 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > Although using "inline" like this does not look clean, we could see
> > > measurable performance improvements: get_dirty_log for 1GB dirty memory
> > > became faster by more than 10% on my test box.
> > >
> >
> > WOW. I'd have assumed the processor deals better with this; it should
> > be 100% predicted branches.
> >
> > But I won't argue with cold data.
>
> What I checked was:
>
> original with-patch2 with-patch3
> 8.7ms 8.5ms 7.5ms
What's the per-call numbers?
> I assumed that without "inline" only __rmap_get_next() would be inlined
> into rmap_get_next() so did like this.
>
> I thought the improvement was just from removing one function call for
> each rmap_write_protect. Not sure if anything was changed with branch
> predictions.
What I mean is, modern cpus effectively inline simple function calls by
predicting the call, and branchs within the function, and the return, so
they don't have to stop their pipelines at any of these points. But
again, the numbers talk louder than speculation about cpu architecture.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-15 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-15 9:18 [PATCH 0/3] KVM: MMU: Improve rmap handling Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-15 9:19 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: MMU: Make pte_list_desc fit cache lines well Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-15 9:22 ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-15 9:20 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: MMU: Improve iteration over sptes linked by rmap Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-15 9:44 ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-15 10:25 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-15 9:21 ` [PATCH 3/3] KVM: MMU: Separate trivial NULL check out from rmap_get_next() Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-15 9:49 ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-15 10:15 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-15 12:01 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2012-03-15 13:41 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-15 13:45 ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-15 13:46 ` Avi Kivity
2012-03-20 6:37 ` Takuya Yoshikawa
2012-03-20 11:56 ` Avi Kivity
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=4F61DA07.4010200@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox