On 04/27/2012 06:23 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 27.04.2012, at 07:48, Paul Mackerras wrote: > >> Have you measured a performance improvement with this patch? If so >> how big was it? > > Yeah, I tried things on 970 in an mfsprg/mtsprg busy loop. I measured 3 different variants: > > C irq handling: 1004944 exits/sec > asm irq handling: 1001774 exits/sec > asm + hsrr patch: 994719 exits/sec > > So as you can see, that code change does have quite an impact. But > maybe the added complexity isn't worth it? Either way, we should try > and find a solution that works the same way for booke and book3s - I > don't want such an integral part to differ all that much. Is it really added complexity, considering what you can remove from the asm? I went with C handling on bookehv because it seemed simpler (the original internal version had asm handling). -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
