public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.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 00:02:22 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46803B6E.6030804@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070625200601.GA18980@elte.hu>

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> Subject: [patch] sys_time() speedup
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> 
> improve performance of sys_time(). sys_time() returns time in seconds, 
> but it does so by calling do_gettimeofday() and then returning the 
> tv_sec portion of the GTOD time. But the data structure "xtime", which 
> is updated by every timer/scheduler tick, already offers HZ granularity 
> time.
> 
> the patch improves the sysbench OLTP macrobenchmark significantly:
> 
> 2.6.22-rc6:
> 
> #threads
>    1:        transactions:                        3733   (373.21 per sec.)
>    2:        transactions:                        6676   (667.46 per sec.)
>    3:        transactions:                        6957   (695.50 per sec.)
>    4:        transactions:                        7055   (705.48 per sec.)
>    5:        transactions:                        6596   (659.33 per sec.)
> 
> 2.6.22-rc6 + sys_time.patch:
> 
>    1:        transactions:                        4005   (400.47 per sec.)
>    2:        transactions:                        7379   (737.77 per sec.)
>    3:        transactions:                        7347   (734.49 per sec.)
>    4:        transactions:                        7468   (746.65 per sec.)
>    5:        transactions:                        7428   (742.47 per sec.)
> 
> mixed API uses of gettimeofday() and time() are guaranteed to be 
> coherent via the use of a at-most-once-per-second slowpath that updates 
> xtime.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
>  kernel/time.c |   27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux/kernel/time.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/time.c
> +++ linux/kernel/time.c
> @@ -57,14 +57,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(sys_tz);
>   */
>  asmlinkage long sys_time(time_t __user * tloc)
>  {
> -	time_t i;
> -	struct timeval tv;
> +	/*
> +	 * We read xtime.tv_sec atomically - it's updated
> +	 * atomically by update_wall_time(), so no need to
> +	 * even read-lock the xtime seqlock:
> +	 */
> +	time_t i = xtime.tv_sec;
>  
> -	do_gettimeofday(&tv);
> -	i = tv.tv_sec;
> +	smp_rmb(); /* sys_time() results are coherent */
>  
>  	if (tloc) {
> -		if (put_user(i,tloc))
> +		if (put_user(i, tloc))
>  			i = -EFAULT;
>  	}
>  	return i;
> @@ -373,6 +376,20 @@ void do_gettimeofday (struct timeval *tv
>  
>  	tv->tv_sec = sec;
>  	tv->tv_usec = usec;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Make sure xtime.tv_sec [returned by sys_time()] always
> +	 * follows the gettimeofday() result precisely. This
> +	 * condition is extremely unlikely, it can hit at most
> +	 * once per second:
> +	 */

Unfortunatly, some arches (x86_64) can call both sys_time() and vgettimeofday().

And vgettimeofday() cannot update xtime (its mapped readonly in vsyscall 
page), so the coherency wont be guaranted.

Also, I thought glibc time(0) was calling gettimeofday() on x86_64, so I 
wonder on which machine you got your bench results.

Are you still using a 32 bits platform ? :)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-06-25 22:03 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
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 [this message]
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=46803B6E.6030804@cosmosbay.com \
    --to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --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