netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Route cache performance under stress

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Route cache performance under stress
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: "greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx" <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xerox@xxxxxxxxxx" <xerox@xxxxxxxxxx>, "sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030610.180120.71112140.davem@redhat.com>
References: <20030610.152020.59678979.davem@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306101956520.7801@ns.istop.com> <3EE67D2D.80608@candelatech.com> <20030610.180120.71112140.davem@redhat.com>
Reply-to: ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, David S. Miller wrote:

> TSC do_gettimeofday() is REALLY cheap (TSC read plus a multiply which
> x86 does in like 5 cycles).

Aren't the read_lock_irqsave and restore expensive?

        read_lock_irqsave(&xtime_lock, flags);
        usec = do_gettimeoffset();
        {
                unsigned long lost = jiffies - wall_jiffies;
                if (lost)
                        usec += lost * (1000000 / HZ);
        }
        sec = xtime.tv_sec;
        usec += xtime.tv_usec;
        read_unlock_irqrestore(&xtime_lock, flags);


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>