[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B019D40.4010108@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:43:12 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/21] sched: implement scheduler notifiers
Hello,
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Four hlist_heads (64 bytes) is pretty heavy for this.
hlist_head is one pointer, so it will be 32bytes on 64bit machines.
> I having all members present in sched_notifier (instead of a union)
> and calling a callback if it is not NULL. This reduces the overhead
> to 16 bytes at the expense of an extra check for sched_notifier
> users.
And it will reduce the overhead to 8 bytes. Anyways, Linus was
against walking the list multiple times for different callbacks and
the way kvm uses these notifiers doesn't work very well with
allocating separate table on demand, so I just went with four
pointers. Given that these notifiers are quite unpopular yet, I lean
toward Avi's suggestion. Linus?
> Besides this, is there any difference to preempt_notifiers? if not we
> can just add the new members and rename.
Yeap, if we're gonna add things to ops table, I agree that would be
better.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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