Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-10,: Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2

# Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2

Perry Harrington (pedward@sun4.apsoft.com)
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 07:55:10 -0800 (PST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2"
- Previous message: Matthias Hanisch: "[PATCH] __initfunc & __initdata for 2.1.89 and 2.1.90p1"
- Next in thread: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2"
- Reply: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2"

What about random IO perms ina thread because of not initialzing? AAck,
my left paren just went bad!!!

--Perry

>
>
> this patch implements 'delayed IO-bitmap clearing'. Benchmarking clone()
> thread creation latency on a 100 MHZ P5 UP gives:
>
> without patch:
>
> hell:~> ./lat_clone
> best clone() latency: 3316 cycles
>
> with patch:
>
> hell:~> ./lat_clone
> best clone() latency: 2941 cycles
>
> a ~13% speedup. I think Linux thus holds the x86 kernel thread creation
> speed world record? ;)
>
> [my 100 MHz P5 does 9208 create+wait+exit threads/sec, this should scale
> to something like 50K threads/sec on high end x86 systems. More than 70%
> of the overhead is now in the wait()/exit() part.]
>
> i've tested sys_ioperm() functionality, and it seems to work fine in all
> the important cases.
>
> -- mingo
>

    --
    Perry Harrington       Linux rules all OSes.    APSoft      ()
    email: perry@apsoft.com 			Think Blue. /\

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2"
- Previous message: Matthias Hanisch: "[PATCH] __initfunc & __initdata for 2.1.89 and 2.1.90p1"
- Next in thread: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2"
- Reply: MOLNAR Ingo: "Re: [patch] x86 clone() speedup, 2.1.90-pre2"