* Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:
> >in any case, on sane platforms (i386, x86_64) an irq-disable is
> >well-optimized in hardware, and is just as fast as a preempt_disable().
>
> I'm afraid its not the case on current hardware.
>
> The irq enable/disable pair count for more than 50% the cpu time spent
> in kmem_cache_alloc()/kmem_cache_free()/kfree()
because you are not using NMI based profiling?
> oprofile results on a dual Opteron 246 :
>
> You can see the high profile numbers right after cli and popf(sti)
> instructions, popf being VERY expensive.
that's just the profiling interrupt hitting them. You should not analyze
irq-safe code with a non-NMI profiling interrupt.
CLI/STI is extremely fast. (In fact in the -rt tree i'm using them
within mutexes instead of preempt_enable()/preempt_disable(), because
they are faster and generate less register side-effect.)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
