From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Gerd Knorr <kraxel@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:53:29 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906080749180.6847@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200906071023.04789.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> "possible"? You mean "acceptable". Gray, not black and white.
I don't think we can possibly claim to support UP configurations if we
don't patch.
> 1) Where's the line?
"As good as we can make it". There is no line. There's "your code sucks so
badly that it needs to get fixed, or we'll rip it out or disable it".
> 2) Where are we? Does patching claw back 5% of the loss? 50%? 90%?
On some things, especially on P4, the lock overhead was tens of percent.
Just a single locked instruction takes closer to two hundred instructions.
Of course, on those P4's, just kernel entry/exit is pretty high too (even
with sysenter/exit), so I doubt you'll ever see something be 90% just
because of that, unless it causes extra IO or other non-CPU issues.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-08 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-14 0:16 Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 1:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-14 14:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 17:36 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-14 17:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-14 8:05 ` [Xen-devel] Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on nativeidentified Jan Beulich
2009-05-14 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-05-14 17:45 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15 8:10 ` Jan Beulich
2009-05-15 18:50 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-18 7:19 ` Jan Beulich
2009-05-20 22:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-15 18:18 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86: Fix performance regression caused by paravirt_ops on native kernels tip-bot for Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 22:42 ` Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified Chuck Ebbert
2009-05-21 22:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-21 23:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 1:26 ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22 3:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 4:27 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22 5:59 ` Xin, Xiaohui
2009-05-22 16:33 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-22 22:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-22 22:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-05-25 9:15 ` [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native kernels Ingo Molnar
2009-05-26 18:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-28 6:17 ` Nick Piggin
2009-05-28 20:57 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-05-30 10:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-02 14:18 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 14:49 ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-06-02 15:03 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 15:22 ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-06-02 16:20 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-02 18:13 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-06-02 18:06 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-06-02 18:27 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-03 6:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-02 19:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-02 19:51 ` Chris Mason
2009-06-03 12:38 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-03 16:09 ` Linus Torvalds
[not found] ` <200906041554.37102.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
2009-06-04 15:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-04 21:52 ` Dave McCracken
2009-06-05 7:31 ` Gerd Hoffmann
2009-06-05 14:31 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-06 18:54 ` Anders K. Pedersen
2009-06-05 4:46 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-05 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-07 0:53 ` Rusty Russell
2009-06-08 14:53 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-06-09 9:39 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 11:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 12:10 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 12:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 12:42 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 12:56 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-09 15:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 23:33 ` Paul Mackerras
2009-06-10 1:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 15:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 15:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-09 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 18:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 22:48 ` Matthew Garrett
2009-06-09 22:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-06-09 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 14:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 15:55 ` Avi Kivity
2009-06-09 15:38 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 16:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 16:21 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 16:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-09 16:45 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-09 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 5:53 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-17 9:40 ` Pavel Machek
2009-06-17 9:56 ` Nick Piggin
2009-06-10 6:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-06-04 6:58 Rusty Russell
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=alpine.LFD.2.01.0906080749180.6847@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=kraxel@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--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