Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function

2017-02-08 Thread Waiman Long
On 02/08/2017 02:05 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:24PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >> It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk >> on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were >> as follows: >> >> 71.27% 0.28% fio [k

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function

2017-02-08 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:00:24PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk > on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were > as follows: > > 71.27% 0.28% fio [k] down_write > 70.99% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_d

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function

2017-02-08 Thread Waiman Long
It was found when running fio sequential write test with a XFS ramdisk on a 2-socket x86-64 system, the %CPU times as reported by perf were as follows: 71.27% 0.28% fio [k] down_write 70.99% 0.01% fio [k] call_rwsem_down_write_failed 69.43% 1.18% fio [k] rwsem_down_write_failed 65.51%