On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT case adding lots of code
in critical paths all over the place.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:58 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter
On 11/30/2009 12:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Forgot to tell. The results are average between 5 different runs.
Would be good to also report the variance over those 5 runs, allows us
to see if the difference is within the noise.
That's the stddev column.
--
error compiling
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 11:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 12:58 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 09:14:03AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Ok so there is some variance in tests as usual due to cacheline placement.
But it seems that overall we are looking at a 1-2% regression.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT case adding lots of code
in critical paths all over the place.
I want to measure it. Can you suggest benchmarks to try?
AIM9 (reaim9)?
Do not preempt kernel. Just maintain counter to know if task can be rescheduled.
Asynchronous page fault may be delivered while spinlock is held or current
process can't be preempted for other reasons. KVM uses preempt_count() to check
if preemptions is allowed and schedule other process if
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 16:06 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Do not preempt kernel. Just maintain counter to know if task can be
rescheduled.
Asynchronous page fault may be delivered while spinlock is held or current
process can't be preempted for other reasons. KVM uses preempt_count() to
check
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:34:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 16:06 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Do not preempt kernel. Just maintain counter to know if task can be
rescheduled.
Asynchronous page fault may be delivered while spinlock is held or current
process can't
This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT case adding lots of code
in critical paths all over the place.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe kvm in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30:02AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
This adds significant overhead for the !PREEMPT case adding lots of code
in critical paths all over the place.
I want to measure it. Can you suggest benchmarks to try?
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from
12 matches
Mail list logo
