* Denys Vlasenko ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2007 16:59, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > +We can therefore affirm that adding 2 markers to getppid, on a system with high
> > +memory pressure, would have a performance hit of at least 6.0% on the system
> > +call time, all within the uncertainty limits of these tests. The same applies to
> > +other kernel code paths. The smaller those code paths are, the highest the
> > +impact ratio will be.
>
> Immediates make code bigger, right?
Nope.
Example:
char x;
void testb(void)
{
if (x > 5)
testa();
}
Would turn into:
56: b0 00 mov $0x0,%al
58: 3c 05 cmp $0x5,%al
5a: 7e 05 jle 61 <testb+0x11>
(6 bytes)
Rather than:
56: 80 3d 00 00 00 00 05 cmpb $0x5,0x0
5d: 7e 05 jle 64 <testb+0x14>
(9 bytes)
So actually, immediate values well used make the code smaller. By the
way, I recommend using the smallest immediate values required, which
will often be a single byte.
> What will happen on a system with high *icache* pressure?
It *helps* :) And by the way, icache on recent x86 and x86_64 is a trace
cache, so I don't see your point anyway.
> There a lot of inline happy and/or C++ folks out there
> in the userland, they routinely have programs in tens of megabytes range.
>
> getppid is one of the lightest syscalls out there.
> What kind of speedup do you see on a real-world test
> (two processes exchaging data through pipes, for example)?
>
With the size of the caches we currently have, that kind of workload
will not show any measurable difference: the signal/noise ratio is way
to small to detect that kind of performance difference under such
workload. Try it if you want.
The real-world speedup I am interested into is to have almost -zero-
tracer impact, which imples being undetectable even in the smallest and
shortest functions. I guess nobody is interested in adding a measurable
performance hit to kmalloc fast path, right ?
> > +Therefore, not only is it interesting to use the immediate values to dynamically
> > +activate dormant code such as the markers, but I think it should also be
> > +considered as a replacement for many of the "read mostly" static variables.
>
> What effect that will have on "size vmlinux" on AMD64?
Without considering kernel/immediate.o, it will make the code smaller
and add 3*8bytes=24bytes of data in the __immediate section per
immediate value reference (data only used for updates).
Mathieu
> --
> vda
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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]
