Re: [PATCH RT 00/02] SLOB optimizations

Eric Dumazet
2005-12-22T21:39:27Z

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
>
>>> in any case, on sane platforms (i386, x86_64) an irq-disable is
>>> well-optimized in hardware, and is just as fast as a preempt_disable().
>> I'm afraid its not the case on current hardware.
>>
>> The irq enable/disable pair count for more than 50% the cpu time spent
>> in kmem_cache_alloc()/kmem_cache_free()/kfree()
>
> because you are not using NMI based profiling?
>
>> oprofile results on a dual Opteron 246 :
>>
>> You can see the high profile numbers right after cli and popf(sti)
>> instructions, popf being VERY expensive.
>
> that's just the profiling interrupt hitting them. You should not analyze
> irq-safe code with a non-NMI profiling interrupt.
>

I'm using oprofile on Opteron, and AFAIK it's NMI based.

# grep NMI /proc/interrupts ; sleep 1 ; grep NMI /proc/interrupts
NMI: 391352095 2867983903
NMI: 391359678 2867998498

thats 7583 and 14595 NMI / second on cpu0 and cpu1 respectivly in this sample.

> CLI/STI is extremely fast. (In fact in the -rt tree i'm using them
> within mutexes instead of preempt_enable()/preempt_disable(), because
> they are faster and generate less register side-effect.)
>
> Ingo
>
>