On 01/29/2016 10:36 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:22:59PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
>>> From: Rik van Riel
>>>
>>> When running a microbenchmark calling an invalid syscall number
>>> in a loop, on
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:10:18AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:22:59PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Rik van Riel
> >
> > When running a microbenchmark calling an invalid syscall number
> > in a loop, on a nohz_full CPU, we spend a full 9% of our CPU
> > ti
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 05:22:59PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel
>
> When running a microbenchmark calling an invalid syscall number
> in a loop, on a nohz_full CPU, we spend a full 9% of our CPU
> time in __acct_update_integrals.
>
> This function converts cputime_t to jiff
From: Rik van Riel
When running a microbenchmark calling an invalid syscall number
in a loop, on a nohz_full CPU, we spend a full 9% of our CPU
time in __acct_update_integrals.
This function converts cputime_t to jiffies, to a timeval, only to
convert the timeval back to microseconds before disc
4 matches
Mail list logo