linux-next.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to sched_notifier and always enable it
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:38:37 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B0F65DD.1090707@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091127045209.GA13914@elte.hu>

Hello,

11/27/2009 01:52 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Btw., longer term it will be faster than a mask check and a
> default-untaken conditional: there's ongoign work to offer runtime
> instruction patching features for tracing callbacks.  There's the
> jump patching optimization and also the immediate values patching
> optimization.

Scheduler callbacks won't benefit much from it.  There will always be
workqueues and thus conditional branch will always be necessary.

> We've got old-style notifiers for regular callbacks, we've got new-style 
> tracepoints which are callbacks and event source descriptors - and what 
> i'm asking for is to have _one_ callback mechanism, and to use that in 
> the scheduler. 5 callbacks using 3 different facilities is excessive - 
> i'd like to see just two callbacks using one facility.

The patches in question don't really change anything in in/out paths.
It only adds wake up and sleep callbacks to the existing notifier
mechanism.  Sure, let's unify all of them and make them prettier and
more efficient but I don't think we need to hold up workqueue changes
for that, right?  We can do those in separate steps and have workqueue
changes tested in at least linux-next.

I'll re-post four scheduler patches which reorganize preempt notifier
but make no functional changes and another one to add wakeup and
sleep.  The first four can go into sched/core and the last one in a
separate branch.  That way, conflicts will be minimal yet upstream
won't see any functional difference from the current code.  Later when
notifier frameworks is reworked, we can merge them all up and send
them upstream.  How does it sound?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2009-11-27  5:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-26  8:00 linux-next: manual merge of the workqueues tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell
2009-11-26  8:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-26  9:15   ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-26  9:26     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-26  9:48       ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-26  9:51         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-26 10:11           ` [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to sched_notifier and always enable it Tejun Heo
2009-11-26 10:29             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-26 10:32               ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 11:23                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-26 11:56                   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-26 12:40                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-11-27  2:11                       ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-27  4:52                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-27  5:38                           ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2009-11-27  5:46                             ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-27  6:01                               ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-27  6:13                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-27  6:16                                   ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-27  6:21                                     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-27  6:38                                       ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-27  7:02                                         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-26 10:44               ` Tejun Heo
2009-11-27  3:33               ` Paul Mackerras
2009-11-27  4:54                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-11-26 10:13           ` [PATCH 2/4 tip/sched/core] sched: update sched_notifier and add wakeup/sleep notifications Tejun Heo
2009-11-26 10:13           ` [PATCH 3/4 tip/sched/core] sched: refactor try_to_wake_up() and implement try_to_wake_up_local() Tejun Heo
2009-11-26 10:14           ` [PATCH 4/4 tip/sched/core] sched: implement force_cpus_allowed() Tejun Heo

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=4B0F65DD.1090707@kernel.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).