On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:15:24AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15 April 2014 04:52, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:53:51PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> __tick_nohz_task_switch() was called only from tick_nohz_task_switch() and
> >> there
> >> is nothing much in tick_nohz_task_switch() as well. IOW, we don't need
> >> unnecessary wrapper over __tick_nohz_task_switch() to be there. Merge all
> >> code
> >> from __tick_nohz_task_switch() into tick_nohz_task_switch() and move it to
> >> tick-sched.c.
> >>
> >> This also moves check for tick_nohz_tick_stopped() outside of irq_save()
> >> context.
> >
> > No, the wrapper is there on purpose in order to optimize the full dynticks
> > off case in
> > the context switch path with the jump label'ed check on
> > tick_nohz_full_enabled().
>
> Just to clarify, you are saying that:
>
> Wrapper was there to save an extra function call when tick_nohz_full_enabled()
> returns false, as tick_nohz_task_switch() will be inlined ?
Yeah. But not just that.
Using an inline saves a function call and reduce the offline case to a simple
condition check. But there is also the jump label that reduce the condition
check
to an unconditional jump in the off case.
To summarize, here's how calling tick_nohz_task_switch() maps to final C code:
finish_task_switch()
{
//do things before calling tick_nohz_task_switch()...
// call tick_nohz_task_switch
goto offcase;
if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
__tick_nohz_task_switch(tsk);
offcase:
//end of call to tick_nohz_task_switch
//do things before calling tick_nohz_task_switch()...
}
In the offcase, the code is like above. We don't even do the check, thanks to
the jump label code we unconditionally jump to what's next in
finish_task_switch()
(there is actually nothing afterward but that's for the picture).
Now if there is at least a CPU that is full dynticks on boot, it is enabled
with context_tracking_cpu_set(). Then the jump label code patches the code in
finish_task_switch() to turn the goto offcase into a nop. Then the condition is
actually verified on every call to finish_task_switch().
So it goes beyond than just saving a function call.
>
> In this case probably we can move !can_stop_full_tick() as well to the
> wrapper ?
Do you mean moving all the code of __tick_nohz_task_switch() to
tick_nohz_task_switch()?
I much prefer we don't do that. This is going to make can_stop_full_tick() a
publicly
visible nohz internal. And it may uglify tick.h as well.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
