From: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Kernel development list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Optimizing notifier_call_chain
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:13:59 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1132780439.6492.13.camel@linuxchandra> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0511231057430.4477-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 11:01 -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > While making the notifier chain safe, i found room for some optimization.
> > Please comment on if it is worth pursuing.
> >
> > notifier_call_chain() calls registered callouts for _all_ events. But, many
> > of the callouts handle only few events.
> >
> > If we change notifier_call_chain() to call the callout only on registered
> > events, we can avoid few function overhead.
> >
> > Currently, events is of free format, we have to make it bit per event.
> > Among the existing users, ia64die_chain uses the highest number(25) of
> > events. i think 64 bit event would suffice.
> >
> > simplified logic:
> > notifier_call_chain(event)
> > {
> > if ((head->event & event) != 0)
> > return;
> > for_each_callout {
> > if ((notifier_block->event & event) != 0)
> > notifier_block->call(event);
> > }
> > }
>
> You would need to mask against (1ull << event), not against event.
> tset_bit() might work better.
event will be a bit field, not a sequential number.
>
> Do you really want to do this? It will mean changing every single
> notifier_block definition in the kernel, in addition to all the the
> notifier_heads. That's an awful lot of work for a relatively small gain.
Valid question. That is one of the reason of my posting this question.
I was planning to make the interface change to handle bitwise events
with zero being "all events". Future users will use the bitwise events.
w.r.t existing users, i would change only the macros(that were listed)
and let the module owners do the change to the notifier blocks when they
want (or file a kernel janitor bug).
The object was to move towards optimization.
> I believe that notifier_call_chain does not run very often, but I don't
> have any actual figures.
>
> Alan Stern
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Seetharaman | Be careful what you choose....
- sekharan@us.ibm.com | .......you may get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-23 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-23 3:27 Optimizing notifier_call_chain Chandra Seetharaman
2005-11-23 16:01 ` Alan Stern
2005-11-23 21:13 ` Chandra Seetharaman [this message]
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=1132780439.6492.13.camel@linuxchandra \
--to=sekharan@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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