Re: [RFC PATCH] x86-64: software IRQ masking and handling

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I have seen some hits with cli-sti. I was considering swapping all
> preempt_disable() with local_irq_save() in ftrace, but hackbench showed
> a 30% performance degradation when I did that.

Yeah, but in that case you almost certainly keep the per-cpu cacheline
hot in the D$ L1 cache, and the stack tracer is presumably also not
taking any extra I$ L1 misses. So you're not seeing any of the
downsides. The upside of plain cli/sti is that they're small, and have
no D$ footprint.

And it's possible that the interrupt flag - at least if/when
positioned right - wouldn't have any additional D$ footprint under
normal load either. IOW, if there is an existing per-cpu cacheline
that is effectively always already dirty and in the cache,
But that's something that really needs macro-benchmarks - exactly
because microbenchmarks don't show those effects since they are always
basically hot-cache.

Also, the preempt code is pretty optimized and uses "add". Tejun uses
"btrl" at least in some places, which is generally not a fast
instruction.  So there's a few caveats there too. Which is why I'd
want numbers.

                   Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/