From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch, v2.6.22-rc6] sys_time() speedup
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:26:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070626152629.GA3342@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070625151508.86fa3778.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
* Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > the patch improves the sysbench OLTP macrobenchmark significantly:
> >
> > Has that any real practical relevance?
>
> Interesting question. [...]
i'm missing the <sarcastic> tag i guess ;-)
<sarcastic> Oh my, does database macro-performance have any relevance to
Linux bread and butter markets in general. Boggle, it is a really
difficult question i suspect. </sarcastic>
If we ignore those few million database and web server Linux boxes on
the market and concentrate purely on the few m68k boxes that are still
in existance, _then_ we might be doubtful about this question ;-)
> [...] The patch adds a new test-n-branch to gettimeofday() so if
> gettimeofday() is used much more frequently than time(), we lose.
given that the cost to sys_gettimeofday() is less than a cycle (we test
a value already in a register, with an unlikely hint), and the benefit
to sys_time() is around 6000 cycles (or more), sys_gettimeofday() would
have to be used thousands of times more frequently than sys_time() -
which it clearly isnt. As a test i just triggered a really X-intense
workload and for that gettimeofday-dominated landscape there was still 1
sys_time() call for every 50 gettimeofday calls - so it's a small win
even for this X workload.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-26 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-25 20:06 [patch, v2.6.22-rc6] sys_time() speedup Ingo Molnar
2007-06-25 21:09 ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-25 21:17 ` Jesper Juhl
2007-06-25 22:00 ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-25 22:20 ` Jesper Juhl
2007-06-25 22:49 ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-26 16:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-26 16:39 ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-26 16:49 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 17:13 ` Ray Lee
2007-06-27 0:15 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 17:08 ` Roman Zippel
2007-06-26 17:35 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-25 22:15 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-26 2:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2007-06-26 15:26 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2007-06-26 17:14 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-27 0:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 15:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2007-06-26 17:36 ` Andrew Morton
2007-06-25 22:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-06-26 0:22 ` Mark Lord
2007-06-26 14:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-06-26 16:59 ` john stultz
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=20070626152629.GA3342@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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