From: "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC/HACK] x86: Fast return to kernel
Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 12:59:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53669C32.2010601@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140504184016.GA16438@gmail.com>
On 05/04/2014 11:40 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>>> That said, regular *device* interrupts do often return to kernel
>>> mode (the idle loop in particular), so if you have any way to
>>> measure that, that might be interesting, and might show some of
>>> the same advantages.
>>
>> I can try something awful involving measuring latency of
>> hardware-timed packets on a SolarFlare card, but I'll have
>> calibration issues. I suppose I could see if 'ping' gets faster.
>> In general, this will speed up interrupts that wake userspace from
>> idle by about 100ns on my box, since it's presumably the same size
>> and the speedup per loop in my silly benchmark.
>
> To simulate high rate device IRQ you can generate very high frequency
> lapic IRQs by using hrtimers, that's generating a ton of per CPU lapic
> IRQs.
>
The bigger question is if that helps in measuring the actual latency.
It should get more data points, to be sure.
Maybe let userspace sit in a tight loop doing RDTSC, and look for data
points too far apart to have been uninterrupted?
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-04 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-02 19:04 [RFC/HACK] x86: Fast return to kernel Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-02 19:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 19:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-04 18:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-05-04 19:59 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2014-05-04 21:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-04 22:01 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 20:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 20:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-02 21:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 21:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-02 21:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-02 21:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 21:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-02 21:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 21:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-05-04 23:46 ` Paolo Bonzini
2014-05-04 23:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-02 20:19 ` Steven Rostedt
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=53669C32.2010601@intel.com \
--to=h.peter.anvin@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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