From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [3/6] scheduler: Do devirtualization for sched_fair
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 14:32:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710081432.24776.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071008114234.GC22199@elte.hu>
> hm, i'm not convinced about this one. It increases the code size a bit
Tiny bit (<200 bytes) and the wait_for/sleep_on refactor patch in the series
saves over 1K so I should have some room for code size increase. Overall
it will be still considerable smaller.
> and it's a sched.c local hack. If then this should be done on a generic
> infrastructure level - lots of other code (VFS, networking, etc.) could
> benefit from it i suspect - and then should be .configurable as well.
Unfortunately not -- for this to work (especially for inlining) requires to
#include files implementing the sub calls. Except for the scheduler that
is pretty uncommon unfortunately. Also the situation regarding which
call target is the common one is typically much less clear than with
sched_fair / other scheduling classes.
I considered making it generic, but I don't think it would make sense
at the current time.
Also most paths are not as time critical as the scheduler.
> Then the benefit might become measurable too.
It might have been measurable if the context switch was measurable at all.
Unfortunately the lmbench3 lat_ctx test I tired fluctuated by itself
over 50%. Ok I suppose it would be possible to instrument the kernel itself
to measure cycles. Would that convince you?
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-08 12:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-07 20:59 [PATCH] [0/6] Some scheduler changes for sched-devel Andi Kleen
2007-10-07 20:59 ` [PATCH] [1/6] scheduler: Remove some unnecessary gotos in sched.c Andi Kleen
2007-10-08 11:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-09 19:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-10 0:55 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-10 11:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-10 11:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-07 20:59 ` [PATCH] [2/6] scheduler: Refactor common code of sleep_on / wait_for_completion Andi Kleen
2007-10-07 22:22 ` [PATCH] [2/6] scheduler: Refactor common code of sleep_on / wait_for_completion v2 Andi Kleen
2007-10-08 11:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-08 12:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-07 20:59 ` [PATCH] [3/6] scheduler: Do devirtualization for sched_fair Andi Kleen
2007-10-08 11:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-08 12:32 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2007-10-08 12:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-08 14:33 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-07 20:59 ` [PATCH] [4/6] scheduler: Refactor normalize_rt_tasks Andi Kleen
2007-10-08 11:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-07 20:59 ` [PATCH] [5/6] scheduler: Protect important kernel threads against normalize_rt Andi Kleen
2007-10-08 11:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-08 12:33 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-08 12:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-10-08 13:08 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-07 20:59 ` [PATCH] [6/6] scheduler: Remove bogus comment in sched_group_set_shares Andi Kleen
2007-10-08 11:52 ` 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=200710081432.24776.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox