From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <jlelli@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lib/smp_processor_id: Don't use cpumask_equal()
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:30:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a57f64c-6145-4191-2e0a-9f90f019b96d@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191004092048.l2jeutbrffnwfol2@linutronix.de>
On 10/4/19 5:20 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-10-03 16:36:08 [-0400], Waiman Long wrote:
>> The check_preemption_disabled() function uses cpumask_equal() to see
>> if the task is bounded to the current CPU only. cpumask_equal() calls
>> memcmp() to do the comparison. As x86 doesn't have __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCMP,
>> the slow memcmp() function in lib/string.c is used.
>>
>> On a RT kernel that call check_preemption_disabled() very frequently,
>> below is the perf-record output of a certain microbenchmark:
>>
>> 42.75% 2.45% testpmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] check_preemption_disabled
>> 40.01% 39.97% testpmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcmp
>>
>> We should avoid calling memcmp() in performance critical path. So the
>> cpumask_equal() call is now replaced with an equivalent simpler check.
> using a simple integer comparison is still more efficient than what
> __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCMP can offer.
You are right. My main point is to try to avoid using cpumask_equal() in
performance critical path irrespective of this patch.
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> Acked-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
>
> Sebastian
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-04 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-03 20:36 Waiman Long
2019-10-04 9:20 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-10-04 12:30 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2019-10-04 10:32 ` Juri Lelli
2019-10-07 12:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-10-09 12:59 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6a57f64c-6145-4191-2e0a-9f90f019b96d@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=jlelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®