* Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Btw., does cpu_base->active_bases even make sense? hrtimer bases are
> > fundamentally percpu, and to check whether there are any pending
> > timers is a very simple check:
> >
> > base->active->next != NULL
> >
> > So I'd rather suggest taking a direct look at the head, instead of
> > calculating bit positions, masks, etc.
> >
> > Furthermore, we never actually use cpu_base->active_bases as a
> > 'summary' value (which is the main point of bitmasks in general),
> > so I'd remove that complication altogether.
> >
> > This would speed up various hrtimer primitives like
> > hrtimer_remove()/add and simplify the code. It would be a net code
> > shrink as well.
>
> Well. You trade a bit more code against touching cache lines to
> figure out whether the clock base has active timers or not. So for a
> lot of scenarios where only clock monotonic is used you touch 3
> cache lines for nothing.
In the (typical) case it will touch one extra cacheline - and removes
a fair bit of complexity which 80 bytes (that touches two cachelines):
7502 427 0 7929 1ef9 hrtimer.o.before
7422 427 0 7849 1ea9 hrtimer.o.after
So even if we were to optimize for cache footprint (which isn't the
only factor we optimize for)it looks like a win-win scenario to me,
even if you ignore the speedup and the simpler code structure...
Ok?
> I'm about to send out a patch which actually makes better use of the
> active_bases field without creating a code size explosion.
So please lets do this series first - it achieves the same thing, with
less cache used and faster code.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
