[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next 0/2] fs/epoll: loosen irq safety when possible
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:05:59PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> >I'm surprised. Is spin_lock_irqsave() significantly more expensive
>> >than spin_lock_irq()? Relative to all the other stuff those functions
>> >are doing? If so, how come? Some architectural thing makes
>> >local_irq_save() much more costly than local_irq_disable()?
>> For example, if you compare x86 native_restore_fl() to xen_restore_fl(),
>> the cost of Xen is much higher.
>Xen is a moot argument. IIRC the point is that POPF (as used by
>*irqrestore()) is a very expensive operation because it changes all
>flags and thus has very 'difficult' instruction dependencies, killing
>the front end reorder and generating a giant bubble in the pipeline.
>Similarly, I suppose PUSHF is an expensive instruction because it needs
>all the flags 'stable' and thus needs to wait for a fair number of prior
>instructions to retire before it can get on with it.
>Combined the whole PUSHF + POPF is _far_ more expensive than STI + CLI,
>because the latter only has dependencies on instructions that muck about
>with IF -- not that many.


In fact it turns out that my Xen numbers for this patch were actually
native (popf), and not the xen_restore_fl() as it was using hvm and
not paravirt.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-06 22:56    [W:0.079 / U:1.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site