From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: optimize out smp_mb using srcu_read_unlock
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 12:14:15 +0100
Message-ID: <52723B87.1050609@redhat.com>
References: <20131030190929.GA7153@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	gleb@redhat.com
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131030190929.GA7153@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

Il 30/10/2013 20:09, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> I noticed that srcu_read_lock/unlock both have a memory barrier,
> so just by moving srcu_read_unlock earlier we can get rid of
> one call to smp_mb().
> 
> Unsurprisingly, the gain is small but measureable using the unit test
> microbenchmark:
> before
> 	vmcall 1407
> after
> 	vmcall 1357
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>

Across how many runs?  Best or average or "all runs were in that
ballpark", :) and what's the minimum/maximum before and after the patch?

As you say the benefit is not surprising, but the experiments should be
documented properly.

Paolo