[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610260913450.16978@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: akpm@...l.org, Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Create rebalance_domains from rebalance_tick
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > While we are at it: Take the opportunity to avoid taking
> > the request queue lock in wake_priority_sleeper if
> > there are no running processes.
>
> Can you split this out? It is good without the tasklet based
> rebalancing.
Sure next rollup will have this:
Avoid taking the rq lock in wake_priority sleeper
Avoid taking the request queue lock in wake_priority_sleeper if
there are no running processes.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-10-26 11:13:29.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/kernel/sched.c 2006-10-26 11:16:44.896476659 -0500
@@ -2900,6 +2900,9 @@ static inline int wake_priority_sleeper(
int ret = 0;
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
+ if (!rq->nr_running)
+ return 0;
+
spin_lock(&rq->lock);
/*
* If an SMT sibling task has been put to sleep for priority
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists