Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Sender: Emanuele Rocca <emarocca@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:45:06 +0200
From:   Emanuele Rocca <ema@debian.org>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: Runtime overhead of PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
Message-ID: <ZTKScoO9kz_LxNMG@ariel>
References: <ZTJFA_Ac6nWawIHb@ariel>
 <7a818250a8f36476f13b57a172fdb1ab23645edc.camel@gmx.de>
 <ZTKDWnLrSnPs9VUi@ariel>
 <c6259a1824e570ddb7aaf114656aa387e028b76d.camel@gmx.de>
 <15e4768144a74b093ad5a43f6e5c263fd98775fb.camel@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <15e4768144a74b093ad5a43f6e5c263fd98775fb.camel@gmx.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-10-20 04:34, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hm, I don't recall the overhead as being that bad, but thar she blows.
> 
> i7-4790                                       avg         cmdline
> 6.5.8-voluntary 3685.08 3679.93 3704.98   3689.99  1.000
> 6.5.8-dynamic   3571.62 3568.61 3550.55   3563.59   .965
>                 3052.06 3032.74 3019.93   3034.91   .822  +DEBUG_PREEMPT
>                 3651.37 3599.87 3615.18   3622.14   .981  preempt=none
>                 3459.58 3514.09 3539.88   3504.51   .949  preempt=full

Perfect, that's in line with my measurements (~20% overhead). Debian
kernels have CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y, it seems wise to set it to 'n'
instead. Thank you.