[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1367344318.8833.59.camel@Wailaba2>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 13:51:58 -0400
From: Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] posix_timers: Defer per process timer stop after
timers processing
>
> > Maybe the condition around the posix_cpu_timer_schedule() block inside
> > cpu_timer_fire() could even be a good candidate for 'unlikely'
> > qualifier.
>
> Well, cpu_timer_fire() is probably not a fast path. So helping branch
> prediction there probably won't have much measurable effect in practice.
>
Frederic, I'm totally sure that you are right on the measurable effect.
When I did propose the 'unlikely' qualifier, please note, that I also
had a documentary purpose in mind.
Would you have searched the 'likely' path that does
posix_cpu_timer_schedule() when you did modify the code if the
'unlikely' tag would have been present?
Greetings,
Olivier
--
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