| 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@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20030610.152020.59678979.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306101956520.7801@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <3EE67D2D.80608@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030610.180120.71112140.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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);
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ben Greear |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: gettime: Was (Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |