[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1310121147.3282.706.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:32:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Hu Tao <hutao@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/17] CFS Bandwidth Control v7.1
On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 00:39 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
>
> > Going beyond that
> > would be using static_branch() to track if there is any bandwidth
> > tracking required at all.
> >
>
> I spent some time examining this option as well. Our toolchain
> apparently is stuck on gcc-4.4 which left me scratching my head at the
> supposed jump label assembly being omitted until I realized
> CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO was missing. I will roll this up also and benchmark
> tomorrow.
Ah, does it actually make things worse if it uses the static_branch
fallbacks? If so we should probably use some HAVE_JUMP_LABEL foo.
--
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