From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
fabio de francesco <fabio@metanix.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [process scheduler] Possible bug in context_swich()?
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:25:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100909112512.GA2228@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201009091312.25424.tim@klingt.org>
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:12:18PM +0200, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> On Thursday, September 09, 2010 12:39:06 pm Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 04:32 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 17:54 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 17:28 +0200, fabio de francesco wrote:
> > > > > In context_switch() (in linux/kernel/sched.c), starting with release
> > > > > 2.6.33, two "unlikely" macro have been changed to "likely". I think
> > > > > the previous logic was right while the latter is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > In case I am missing something I, please, ask someone to explain the
> > > > > above mentioned inversion of logic through releases.
> > > >
> > > > It helps if you CC people, LKML alone is a bit of a gamble.
> > > >
> > > > git blame kernel/sched.c, will tell you that the change you refer to
> > > > comes from:
> > > >
> > > > commit 710390d90f143a9ebb87a475215140f426792efd
> > > > Author: Tim Blechmann <tim@klingt.org>
> > > > Date: Tue Nov 24 11:55:27 2009 +0100
> > > >
> > > > sched: Optimize branch hint in context_switch()
> > > >
> > > > Branch hint profiling on my nehalem machine showed over 90%
> > >
> > > > incorrect branch hints:
> > > That change never made any sense to me, seems Tim must have been
> > > measuring a kthread load. I benched at the time, and saw absolutely
> > > zero difference one way or the other wrt max ctx rate on my Q6600.
> >
> > One option is to simply remove the whole branch hint.. But lets ask Tim
> > what kind of workload he used..
>
> i was using a standard desktop workload, nothing special ...
Just out of curiosity I tried this with two kernel builds on a six way
machine with latest git head and got these numbers:
correct incorrect % Function File Line
------- --------- - -------- ---- ----
644387 484258 42 context_switch sched.c 2851
677534 451199 39 context_switch sched.c 2858
So the hints seem to be rather pointless.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-09 11:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-08 15:28 [process scheduler] Possible bug in context_swich()? fabio de francesco
2010-09-08 15:48 ` Will Newton
2010-09-08 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-09 2:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-09-09 10:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-09-09 11:12 ` Tim Blechmann
2010-09-09 11:25 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2010-09-09 11:25 ` fabio de francesco
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=20100909112512.GA2228@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com \
--to=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=fabio@metanix.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tim@klingt.org \
/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.