[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091127045459.GB13914@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:54:59 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to
sched_notifier and always enable it
* Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
>
> > The sched notifiers and the various event notifiers we have in the same
> > codepaths should really be unified into a single callback framework.
> >
> > We have these _5_ callbacks:
> >
> > ...
> > perf_event_task_sched_out(prev, next, cpu);
> > ...
> > fire_sched_out_notifiers(prev, next);
> > ...
> > trace_sched_switch(rq, prev, next);
> > ...
> > perf_event_task_sched_in(current, cpu_of(rq));
> > fire_sched_in_notifiers(current);
> > ...
> >
> > That could be done with just two callbacks - one for sched-out, one for
> > sched-in.
> >
> > The best way to do that would be to use two TRACE_EVENT() callbacks,
> > make them unconditional and register to them. (with wrappers to make
> > it all convenient to use)
>
> I'd rather 5 explicit direct function calls than two direct calls and
> five indirect function calls, actually...
Those five callbacks are typically disabled on a regular Linux system.
So i'd rather have two sites with some NOPs in them. (no branches, no
calls)
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