Re: Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified

[H. Peter Anvin]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 
> I did a quick experiment to see how many sites this optimisation could 
> actually affect.  Firstly, it does absolutely nothing with frame 
> pointers enabled.  Arranging for no frame pointers is quite tricky, 
> since it means disabling all debugging, tracing and other things.
> 
> With no frame pointers, its about 26 of 5400 indirect calls are 
> immediately followed by ret (not all of those sites are pvops calls).  
> With preempt disabled, this goes up to 45 sites.
> 
> I haven't done any actual runtime tests, but a quick survey of the 
> affected sites shows that only a couple are performance-sensitive; 
> _spin_lock and _spin_lock_irq and _spin_lock_irqsave are the most obvious.
> 

OK, that doesn't seem like a very productive avenue.  Problem still
remains, obviously.

	-hpa

--
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/