public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 350] New: i386 context switch very slow compared to 2.4 due to wrmsr (performance)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:49:26 +0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b2cn96$7dk$1@penguin.transmeta.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20030212042143.GB9273@bjl1.jlokier.co.uk

In article <20030212042143.GB9273@bjl1.jlokier.co.uk>,
Jamie Lokier  <jamie@shareable.org> wrote:
>Dave Jones wrote:
>> I feel I'm missing something obvious here, but is this part the
>> low-hanging fruit that it seems ?
>
>You have eliminated one MSR write very cleanly, although there are
>still a few unnecessary conditionals when compared with grabbing a
>whole branch of the fruit tree, as it were.
>
>That leaves the other MSR write, which is also unnecessary.

No, the other one _is_ necessary.  I did timings, and having it in the
context switch path made system calls clearly faster on a P4 (as
compared to my original trampoline approach).

It may be only two instructions difference ("movl xx,%esp ; jmp common")
in the system call path, but it was much more than two cycles.  I don't
know why, but I assume the system call causes a total pipeline flush,
and then the immediate jmp basically means that the P4 has a hard time
getting the pipe restarted.

This might be fixable by moving more (all?) of the kernel-side fast
system call code into the per-cpu trampoline page, so that you wouldn't
have the immediate jump. Somebody needs to try it and time it, otherwise
the wrmsr stays in the context switch.

I want fast system calls. Most people don't see it yet (because you need
a glibc that takes advantage of it), but those fast system calls are
more than enough to make up for some scheduling overhead.

			Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2003-02-12  5:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-12  1:35 [Bug 350] New: i386 context switch very slow compared to 2.4 due to wrmsr (performance) Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-12  2:59 ` Dave Jones
2003-02-12  4:21   ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12  5:49     ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2003-02-12 10:12       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-03-10  3:07         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-10 11:06           ` Andi Kleen
2003-03-10 18:33             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-10 22:44           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-12 12:54     ` Dave Jones
2003-02-12  7:50   ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-12 10:27     ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12 10:45       ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-12 17:52         ` Ingo Oeser
2003-02-12 18:13           ` Dave Jones
2003-02-12 18:18           ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-13  2:42             ` Alan Cox
2003-02-13  5:17         ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-02-13 18:07           ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-14  0:14             ` [discuss] " Peter Tattam
2003-02-14  1:29               ` Andi Kleen
2003-02-14  1:51               ` Eric Northup
2003-02-14  2:01                 ` Peter Tattam
2003-02-14  4:07                   ` Thomas J. Merritt
2003-02-14  9:38                     ` Peter Finderup Lund
2003-02-14  8:27               ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-03-19  1:22             ` Rob Landley
2003-02-12  4:18 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12  5:54   ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-12 10:18     ` Jamie Lokier
2003-02-12 17:24       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-18 15:24     ` Kevin Pedretti
2003-03-18 16:41       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-18 18:30         ` Brian Gerst
2003-03-18 19:14           ` Thomas Molina
2003-03-18 19:21           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-18 20:03             ` Thomas Schlichter
2003-03-18 20:24             ` Steven Cole
2003-03-19  0:42             ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-03-19  2:22               ` george anzinger
     [not found] <20030318165013$55f4@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <20030318184010$6448@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-03-18 20:19   ` Pascal Schmidt
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-19  9:55 Ph. Marek

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='b2cn96$7dk$1@penguin.transmeta.com' \
    --to=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.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