[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091127054621.GA25672@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:46:21 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to
sched_notifier and always enable it
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 11/27/2009 01:52 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Btw., longer term it will be faster than a mask check and a
> > default-untaken conditional: there's ongoign work to offer runtime
> > instruction patching features for tracing callbacks. There's the
> > jump patching optimization and also the immediate values patching
> > optimization.
>
> Scheduler callbacks won't benefit much from it. There will always be
> workqueues and thus conditional branch will always be necessary.
Other code will benefit from it though, such as the page fault callbacks
i already mentioned.
My position on this is rather clear: i want no new callbacks and no
changes to callbacks in the scheduler until this situation is cleaned
up. Five callback sites are _way_ too much - so if you want to add
callbacks or change them, please clean it up and improve it first.
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