From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduler regression: Too frequent timer interrupts(?)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:49:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090417164918.GK8253@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1239985426.23397.4757.camel@laptop>
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > Is the overhead 1%? 2%? 0.5%? And how did it change from
> > > 2.6.22 onwards? Did it go up by 0.1%, from 1% to 1.1%? Or did
> > > the average go down by 0.05%, while increasing the spread of
> > > events (thus fooling your cutoff)?
> >
> > As you see in the diagrams provided there is a 4 fold increase
> > in the number of interrupts >1usecs when going from 2.6.22 to
> > 2.6.23. How would you measure the overhead? Time spent in the
> > OS? Disturbance of the caches by the OS that cause the
> > application to have to refetch data from Ram?
>
> You could for example run an NMI profiler at 10000 Hz and collect
> samples. Or use PMU hardware to collect numbers
it's even simpler than that: use a user-space loop and an alert()
based signal-handler triggered measurement to count the number of
loops user-space can execute, per second.
Such measurements can very easily be made much more precise than
0.1%, and in a tight loop there's basically no caching issues - it
measures pure 'cycles left for user-space' performance.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-17 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-16 19:53 Scheduler regression: Too frequent timer interrupts(?) Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 7:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 13:42 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 14:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 14:29 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 15:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-23 4:42 ` Pavel Machek
2009-04-28 21:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-28 21:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-28 21:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 15:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-17 15:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 16:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 16:33 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 16:49 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-04-17 17:19 ` Chris Friesen
2009-04-17 17:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 18:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 18:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 18:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 20:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-04-17 20:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-17 23:24 ` Chris Friesen
2009-04-18 7:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-18 7:59 ` Andi Kleen
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=20090417164918.GK8253@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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