[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287673121.6871.108.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:58:41 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Shaun Ruffell <sruffell@...ium.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] Free up pf flag PF_KSOFTIRQD
Le jeudi 21 octobre 2010 à 07:36 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi a écrit :
> Yes. I thought about static inline part. The reason I did not make
> this static inline was because ksoftirqd was declared static in
> softirq.c and this function was getting called from sched.c.
>
I believe you can remove the 'static' for this kind of thing.
> I did not know that this_cpu_read existed though. I guess I should be
> looking at using that elsewhere in the patchset too.
>
Sure :)
> Also, part of the overhead you see below I think is coming from
> DEBUG_PREEMPT. That would be making every smp_processor_id() call more
> expensive. No?
>
Right, but the point is the this_cpu_read() version doesnt have this
overhead, even if DEBUG_PREEMPT is on, at least on x86.
BTW, I lied somehow, because the way this_cpu_read() is handled,
following code :
p == this_cpu_read(ksoftirqd);
generates :
mov %gs:offset,%rax
cmp %rdi,%rax
not :
cmp %gs:offset,%rdi
--
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