On Monday 08 October 2007 14:39:33 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > there's no forced dependency between those two patches :-)
I did that .text reduction only to make up for the text increase from the other patch. Your approach is asking for keeping them both in a single patch next time, which surely cannot be what you really want. > So for now > i've applied the one that saves text and skipped the one that bloats it. Ok, but I trust I have at least 0.5kb bloat budget for future changes now. > > > > 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. > > some workloads would call sched_fair uncommon too. To me this seems like > a workaround for the lack of a particular hardware feature. That's like saying all optimizations are a workaround for lack of hardware with infinite IPC. Yes sure. But that doesn't seem like a very fruitful way to reason. Besides even on CPUs with indirect branch predictor it is probably a win -- they tend to have much less memory to store indirect branch prediction (requires an address) than for conditional jumps (requires just a bit) > > > 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? > > dunno, it would depend on the numbers. But really, in most workloads we > do a lot more VFS indirect calls than scheduler indirect calls. So if > this was an issue i'd really suggest to attack it in a generic way. The difference is that the VFS always did indirect calls; but the scheduler didn't. And again it's much less clear for the VFS in general what are the common paths. To do it fully generic would probably require a JIT and reoptimization at run time -- i don't think that's a path we should go. But if generic solutions are not possible doing it for important special cases where it happens to be possible is certainly a valid approach. But given that I couldn't come up with clear numbers it's reasonable to not apply it yet. I'll try to come up with some better way to measure this. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/