public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, eich@suse.de
Subject: Re: [patch] context-switching overhead in X, ioport(), 2.6.8.1
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:16:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3n00nwepr.fsf@averell.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2vEzI-Vw-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:00:14 +0200")

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:

> while debugging/improving scheduling latencies i got the following
> strange latency report from Lee Revell:
>
>   http://krustophenia.net/testresults.php?dataset=2.6.8.1-P6#/var/www/2.6.8.1-P6
>
> this trace shows a 120 usec latency caused by XFree86, on a 600 MHz x86
> system. Looking closer reveals:
>
>   00000002 0.006ms (+0.003ms): __switch_to (schedule)
>   00000002 0.088ms (+0.082ms): finish_task_switch (schedule)
>
> it took more than 80 usecs for XFree86 to do a context-switch!
>
> it turns out that the reason for this (massive) context-switching
> overhead is the following change in 2.6.8:
>
>       [PATCH] larger IO bitmaps
[...]

At least older XFree86 (4.2/3 time frame) used to only use iopl(). I
know it because at some point ioperm() was completely broken on
x86-64, but the X server never hit it. I wonder why they changed
that. Anyways, perhaps it would be better to just change the X server
back to use iopl(), because it will be always faster than using
ioperm.

-Andi


       reply	other threads:[~2004-08-22 12:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <2vEzI-Vw-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-08-22 12:16 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2004-08-22 12:00   ` [patch] context-switching overhead in X, ioport(), 2.6.8.1 Alan Cox
2004-08-22 14:23     ` Andi Kleen
2004-08-22 14:47       ` Alan Cox
2004-08-22 17:31       ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-21 13:55 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-22  4:46 ` David S. Miller
2004-08-22  5:42   ` Ryan Cumming
2004-08-22  6:00     ` Lee Revell
2004-08-22  6:06       ` Ryan Cumming

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=m3n00nwepr.fsf@averell.firstfloor.org \
    --to=ak@muc.de \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=eich@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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