From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765568AbZFOS3h (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:29:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754267AbZFOS33 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:29:29 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:55784 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752494AbZFOS32 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:29:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:28:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Linus Torvalds , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, paulus@samba.org, acme@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, vegard.nossum@gmail.com, efault@gmx.de, jeremy@goop.org, npiggin@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Fix call-chain support to use NMI-safe methods Message-ID: <20090615182828.GE11248@elte.hu> References: <20090615171845.GA7664@elte.hu> <20090615180527.GB4201@Krystal> <20090615182348.GC11248@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090615182348.GC11248@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > The GUP based method is pretty generic though - and can be used on > other architectures as well. It's not as fast as direct access > though. Another question is: your patch switches over all normal exceptions from IRET to hand-unroll+RET. It would be really nice to benchmark it (via 'perf stat' for example ;-) whether that's a slowdown or a speedup. If it's a slowdown then the decision is easy: we dont want this, we want to push the overhead into the sampling code, away from common codepaths. [ If on the other hand it's a speedup of a few cycles then we have the problem of me suddenly liking this patch a whole lot more ;-) ] Ingo