From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cyril@ti.com (Cyril Chemparathy) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:13:48 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v4 00/13] ARM LPAE Fixes - Part 1 In-Reply-To: <20130201151410.GR23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1359669512-31276-1-git-send-email-cyril@ti.com> <510BDAED.8060805@ti.com> <20130201151410.GR23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <510BE9BC.9090701@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/01/2013 10:14 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 10:10:37AM -0500, Cyril Chemparathy wrote: >> With this, I ran simple network and filesystem performance tests to >> compare the code-patching vs. non-code-patching variants. These tests >> didn't yield any significant performance difference between the two on >> an ARMv7 (Cortex-A8) platform. > > It's not network and fs activity that this kind of stuff is likely to > show up in, but more to do with walking pages tables and the like - > remember that page tables are stored using physical addresses, and any > walks of them have to convert those physical addresses to virtual > addresses and back again. > > So, things like page scanning for eviction (eg, page aging, page > faults even those which just re-use a page from the page cache) have > to use the v:p / p:v translation macros. > Thanks, Russell. Any recommendations on how to best benchmark this? Thanks -- Cyril.