From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
Cc: jlan@engr.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, csa@oss.sgi.com, akpm@osdl.org,
guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net, tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de,
corliss@digitalmages.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 2/2] enhanced MM accounting data collection
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:29:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040928062949.2ab2249e.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040928113858.GA1090@lnx-holt.americas.sgi.com>
Robin wrote:
> I have benchmarked these hooks a very long time ago. The number and
> location has not changed appreciably.
These results seem reasonable ... thanks.
> The size was never very noticable.
But would the time cost of being out of line be noticable either?
Actually, being out of line might be a tick faster, if it reduced by a
cache line what was needed for a common execution path.
> Originally, there was a 5% decrease in performance with the writing of
> the accounting data. There was another unfortunate side effect that some
> of the CSA metrics became much worse. This problem was later identified
> and fixed.
Is there any non-trivial risk that some other "unfortunate side affect"
exists today, that we'd find on benchmarking?
I'm not sure its worth benchmarking again, but I slightly suspect it is,
and if benchmarking was done, I'd do it with these calls both inline and
out of line, to see what affect that had on runtime. If no affect on
runtime, I'd tend toward the out of line calls - at least saving a
little kernel text space.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-28 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-27 22:34 [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 0/2] enhanced accounting data collection Jay Lan
2004-09-27 22:44 ` [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 1/2] enhanced I/O " Jay Lan
2004-09-27 22:50 ` [PATCH 2.6.9-rc2 2/2] enhanced MM " Jay Lan
2004-09-28 9:33 ` Paul Jackson
2004-09-28 11:38 ` Robin Holt
2004-09-28 13:29 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2004-09-28 14:34 ` Robin Holt
2004-10-02 0:38 ` [Lse-tech] " Jay Lan
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=20040928062949.2ab2249e.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=corliss@digitalmages.com \
--cc=csa@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=guillaume.thouvenin@bull.net \
--cc=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=jlan@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de \
/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