On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:18 PM Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 08:12:39PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 19:50:24 -0500 > > Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > All nice, but where are the benchmarks? This looks like it will have an > > > > affect on cache and you can talk all you want about how it will not be an > > > > issue, but without real world benchmarks, it's meaningless. Numbers talk. > > > > > > Steve, you're being demanding. We provided sufficient benchmarks to show > > > the overhead is low enough for production, and then I gave you a > > > detailed breakdown of where our overhead is and where it'll show up. I > > > think that's reasonable. > > > > It's not unreasonable or demanding to ask for benchmarks. You showed only > > micro-benchmarks that do not show how cache misses may affect the system. > > Honestly, it sounds like you did run other benchmarks and didn't like the > > results and are fighting to not have to produce them. Really, how hard is > > it? There's lots of benchmarks you can run, like hackbench, stress-ng, > > dbench. Why is this so difficult for you? I'll run these benchmarks and will include the numbers in the next cover letter. > > Woah, this is verging into paranoid conspiracy territory. > > No, we haven't done other benchmarks, and if we had we'd be sharing > them. And if I had more time to spend on performance of this patchset > that's not where I'd be spending it; the next thing I'd be looking at > would be assembly output of the hooking code and seeing if I could shave > that down. > > But I already put a ton of work into shaving cycles on this patchset, > I'm happy with the results, and I have other responsibilities and other > things I need to be working on.
