All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: sched_clock -> check_tsc_unstable -> tsc_read_c3_time ?!?
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:01:27 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1129233687.16243.52.camel@mindpipe> (raw)

Looking at the latency traces it appears that sched_clock could be
optimized a bit:

evolutio-16296 0D.h4   32us : activate_task (try_to_wake_up)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4   33us : sched_clock (activate_task)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4   33us : check_tsc_unstable (sched_clock)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4   34us : tsc_read_c3_time (sched_clock)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4   35us : recalc_task_prio (activate_task)

check_tsc_unstable and tsc_read_c3_time appear to be new.  Here they
are:

     49 /* Code to mark and check if the TSC is unstable
     50  * due to cpufreq or due to unsynced TSCs
     51  */
     52 static int tsc_unstable;
     53 int check_tsc_unstable(void)
     54 {
     55         return tsc_unstable;
     56 }

     73 u64 tsc_read_c3_time(void)
     74 {
     75         return tsc_c3_offset;
     76 }

Shouldn't these be inlined or something?  I know it's only a few
microseconds, but it seems like excessive function call overhead to me.
I don't use power management and the TSC is stable on this machine.  Why
do we have to call these simple accessor functions over and over?

Lee


             reply	other threads:[~2005-10-13 20:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-13 20:01 Lee Revell [this message]
2005-10-13 20:11 ` sched_clock -> check_tsc_unstable -> tsc_read_c3_time ?!? john stultz
2005-10-13 20:13   ` Lee Revell
2005-10-14  4:35     ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1129233687.16243.52.camel@mindpipe \
    --to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.