* r...@redhat.com <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
>
> On syscall entry with nohz_full on, we enable interrupts, call user_exit,
> disable interrupts, do something, re-enable interrupts, and go on our
> merry way.
>
> Profiling shows that a large amount of the nohz_full overhead comes
> from the extraneous disabling and re-enabling of interrupts. Andy
> suggested simply not enabling interrupts until after the context
> tracking code has done its thing, which allows us to skip a whole
> interrupt disable & re-enable cycle.
>
> This patch builds on top of these patches by Paolo:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/28/188
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/29/139
>
> Together with this patch I posted earlier this week, the syscall path
> on a nohz_full cpu seems to be about 10% faster.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/24/394
>
> My test is a simple microbenchmark that calls getpriority() in a loop
> 10 million times:
>
> run time system time
> vanilla 5.49s 2.08s
> __acct patch 5.21s 1.92s
> both patches 4.88s 1.71s
Just curious, what are the numbers if you don't have context tracking
enabled, i.e. without nohz_full?
I.e. what's the baseline we are talking about?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
