Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750864Ab3HKERr (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:17:47 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:61252 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750721Ab3HKERq (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:17:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1376194657.7006.11.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY From: Mike Galbraith To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 06:17:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <5206659F.9070705@zytor.com> References: <1376089460-5459-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <5205C4BB.6020003@zytor.com> <1376114128.5332.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> <5206659F.9070705@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:K/to4Zh8bLPfQ8l+wff6S5rGb/vCTbFKFsYrlxd7r+m TKfpjncPKc+ZtW+UNeSrxh/Dq+zi9WFRRxKP1coV/crTGZk400 Hp/DmIDEA9huaZPQIBqBzhZiHYxKfTthyq6gzytZo+Rd1Btdzl tV1yCS3Ut2MMU6kBl0eifX64i3NawXS6jdBuCBZPuZqIcUEcEd 0uiEXD+bDWQh5Rsbasdl7xZErEfq/eSw3on1tptF1sRIcY6bfr 3C+447O/CQHVaKIJgXr9JRIemuoqFBgI1Rt4fy9MnZoAcdLW0s UraHZIEWK+cRZ/p5UGhVq1/dj/arCPTf4BREk2glcBQwGT7YAi E+OlEDy4NPqs4exDG7rGeXHZfNk/S/Vfy/qtqIWxvlQf1O576v 8Te15ViWYmYjw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1546 Lines: 46 On Sat, 2013-08-10 at 09:09 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 08/09/2013 10:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > >> > >> Now, here is a bigger question: shouldn't we be deprecating/getting rid > >> of PREEMPT_VOUNTARY in favor of PREEMPT? > > > > I sure hope not, PREEMPT munches throughput. If you need PREEMPT, seems > > to me what you _really_ need is PREEMPT_RT (the real deal), so > > eventually depreciating PREEMPT makes more sense to me. > > > > Do you have any quantification of "munches throughput?" It seems odd > that it would be worse than polling for preempt all over the kernel, but > perhaps the additional locking is what costs. I hadn't compared in ages, so made some fresh samples. Q6600 3.11-rc4 vmark voluntary 169808 155826 154741 1.000 preempt 149354 124016 128436 .836 That should be ~worst case, it hates preemption. tbench 8 voluntary 1027.96 1028.76 1044.60 1.000 preempt 929.06 935.01 928.64 .900 hackbench -l 10000 voluntary 23.146 23.124 23.230 1.000 preempt 25.065 24.633 24.789 1.071 kbuild vmlinux voluntary 3m44.842s 3m42.975s 3m42.954s 1.000 preempt 3m46.141s 3m45.835s 3m45.953s 1.010 Compute load comparisons are boring 'course. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/