[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326707503.2442.219.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:51:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Accelerate "pick_next_entity" under special
condition
On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 17:37 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> We can avoid some useless operation in some special condition.
This is a pretty empty statement.
> For example:
> If we have "cfs_rq->next" and it can be use, we just return it directly.
What it doesn't state is what it actually does, if it affects the common
case and performance numbers (or a good reason for the lack thereof).
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 84adb2d..9fc2c3c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1295,6 +1295,8 @@ set_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> static int
> wakeup_preempt_entity(struct sched_entity *curr, struct sched_entity *se);
>
> +#define ENTITY_PREEMPT_ALLOWED(prev,next) (wakeup_preempt_entity(prev, next) < 1)
This is just uglification imo, its shouting and it doesn't actually win
you much space.
--
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