> 499 nSec/fault ia64_do_page_fault notify_die commented out.
> 501 nSec/fault ia64_do_page_fault with nobody registered.
> 533 nSec/fault notify_die in and just kprobes.
> 596 nSec/fault notify_die in and kdb, kprobes, mca, and xpc loaded.
>
> The 596 nSec/fault is a 19.4% slowdown. This is an upcoming OSD beta
> kernel. It will be representative of what our typical customer will
> have loaded.
>
> Is this enough justification for breaking notify_die into
> notify_page_fault for the fault path?
I didn't see quite the stability from run to run that your results
suggest. Running the benchmark five times on the same kernel, I saw
the mean value of the 128 results go from as low as 439 to as high
as 445. So the difference between commenting in/out the notify_die
call is in the noise.
But comparing the first and last of your results shows that there
is significant slowdown when the notify chain is loaded up with a
ton of stuff, way more than the noise that I see, and I'm glad to see
Anil jumping in to fix this.
-Tony
-
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]
