[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070804065037.GA30816@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 08:50:37 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lmbench ctxsw regression with CFS
* Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> Oh good. Thanks for getting to the bottom of it. We have normally
> disliked too much runtime tunables in the scheduler, so I assume these
> are mostly going away or under a CONFIG option for 2.6.23? Or...?
yeah, they are all already under CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG. (it's just that the
add-on optimization is not upstream yet - the tunings are still being
tested) Btw., with SCHED_DEBUG we now also have your domain-tree sysctl
patch upstream, which has been in -mm for a near eternity.
> What CPU did you get these numbers on? Do the indirect calls hurt much
> on those without an indirect predictor? (I'll try running some tests).
it was on an older Athlon64 X2. I never saw indirect calls really
hurting on modern x86 CPUs - dont both CPU makers optimize them pretty
efficiently? (as long as the target function is always the same - which
it is here.)
> I must say that I don't really like the indirect calls a great deal,
> and they could be eliminated just with a couple of branches and direct
> calls.
yeah - i'll try that too. We can make the indirect call the uncommon
case and a NULL pointer be the common case, combined with a 'default',
direct function call. But i doubt it makes a big (or even measurable)
difference.
Ingo
-
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