> On Sep 12, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2018 04:17 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> Does this mean glibc can keep using a single vDSO entrypoint, the one we
>>>> have today?
>>>
>>> We have no intention to change that.
>>
>> Okay, I was wondering because Andy seemed to have proposed just that.
>>
>>> But we surely could provide separate entry points as an extra to avoid a
>>> bunch of conditionals.
>>
>> We could adjust to that, but the benefit would be long-term because it's an
>> ABI change for glibc, and they tend to take a long time to propagate.
>>
>> But I must say that clock_gettime is an odd place to start. I would have
>> expected any of the type-polymorphic multiplexer interfaces (fcntl, ioctl,
>> ptrace, futex) to be a more natural starting point. 8-)
>
> Well, the starting point of this was to provide clock_tai support in the
> vdso. clock_gettime() in the vdso vs. the real syscall is a factor of 10 in
> speed. clock_gettime() is a pretty hot function in some workloads.
>
> Andy then noticed that some conditionals could be avoided entirely by using
> a different entry point and offered one along with a 10% speedup. We don't
> have to go there, we can.
>
> The multiplexer interfaces need much more surgery and talking about futex,
> we'd need to sit down with quite some people and identify the things they
> actually care about before just splitting it up and keeping the existing
> overloaded trainwreck the same.
>
There’s also the issue of how much the speedup matters. For futex, maybe a
better interface saves 3ns, but a futex syscall is hundreds of ns.
clock_gettime() is called at high frequency and can be ~25ns. Saving a few ns
is a bigger deal.
