From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967670AbeEYSFC (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 14:05:02 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:37670 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967452AbeEYSFB (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2018 14:05:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 19:04:55 +0100 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Quentin Perret Cc: Vincent Guittot , peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated file Message-ID: <20180525180455.GF30654@e110439-lin> References: <1527253951-22709-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1527253951-22709-2-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20180525142648.GC15173@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180525142648.GC15173@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25-May 15:26, Quentin Perret wrote: > And also, I understand these functions are large, but if we _really_ > want to inline them even though they're big, why not putting them in > sched-pelt.h ? Had the same tought at first... but then I recalled that header is generated from a script. Thus, eventually, it should be a different one. > We probably wouldn't accept that for everything, but > those PELT functions are used all over the place, including latency > sensitive code paths (e.g. task wake-up). We should better measure the overheads, if any, and check what (a modern) compiler does. Maybe some hackbench run could help on the first point. > Thanks, > Quentin -- #include Patrick Bellasi