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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox