Re: [profile] amortize atomic hit count increments

William Lee Irwin III
2004-09-14T20:19:28Z

On Tuesday, September 14, 2004 9:05 am, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>> Before dedicidng I'd suggest to have a look and see how the below patch
>>> compares to your approch in performance terms.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:16:48AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>> It looks like the 512p we have here is pretty heavily reserved this
>> week, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to test this (someone else
>> might, John?). I think the balance we're looking for is between
>> simplicity and non-brokenness. Builtin profiling is *supposed* to be
>> simple and dumb, and were it not for the readprofile times, I'd say
>> per-cpu would be the way to go just because it retains the
>> simplicity of the current approach while allowing it to work on
>> large machines (as well as limiting the performance impact of
>> builtin profiling in general). wli's approach seems like a
>> reasonable tradeoff though, assuming what you suggest doesn't work.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:00:30PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Goddamn fscking short-format VHPT crap. Rusty, how the hell do I
> hotplug-ize this?

Successfully tested on x86-64.

-- wli