[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070902152900.GA23642@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 17:29:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE/RFC] Really Fair Scheduler
* Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > And if you look at the resulting code size/complexity, it actually
> > increases with Roman's patch (UP, nodebug, x86):
> >
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 13420 228 1204 14852 3a04 sched.o.rc5
> > 13554 228 1228 15010 3aa2 sched.o.rc5-roman
>
> That's pretty easy to explain due to differences in inlining:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 15092 228 1204 16524 408c kernel/sched.o
> 15444 224 1228 16896 4200 kernel/sched.o.rfs
> 14708 224 1228 16160 3f20 kernel/sched.o.rfs.noinline
no, when generating those numbers i used:
CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y
# CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING is not set
(but i also re-did it for all the other combinations of these build
flags and similar results can be seen - your patch, despite removing
lots of source code, produces a larger sched.o.)
> Sorry, but I didn't spend as much time as you on tuning these numbers.
some changes did slip into your patch that have no other purpose but to
reduce code size:
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
unsigned long cpu_load[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX];
+#endif
[...]
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
/* Used instead of source_load when we know the type == 0 */
unsigned long weighted_cpuload(const int cpu)
{
return cpu_rq(cpu)->ls.load.weight;
}
+#endif
[...]
so i thought you must be aware of the problem - at least considering how
much you've criticised CFS's "complexity" both in your initial review of
CFS (which included object size comparisons) and in this patch
submission of yours (which did not include object size comparisons
though).
> > so unmodified CFS is 4.6% faster on this box than with Roman's patch
> > and it's also more consistent/stable (10 times lower fluctuations).
>
> Was SCHED_DEBUG enabled or disabled for these runs?
debugging disabled of course. (your patch has a self-validity checking
function [verify_queue()] that is called on SCHED_DEBUG=y, it would have
been unfair to test your patch with that included.)
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