[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150409070917.GF14259@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:09:17 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Replace cpu_base->active_bases with a direct
check of the active list
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 08:28:41AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Btw., does cpu_base->active_bases even make sense? hrtimer bases are
> > fundamentally percpu, and to check whether there are any pending
> > timers is a very simple check:
> >
> > base->active->next != NULL
> >
>
> Yeah, that's 3 pointer dereferences from cpu_base, iow you traded a
> single bit test on an already loaded word for 3 potential cacheline
> misses.
But the clock bases are not aligned to cachelines, and we have 4 of
them. So in practice when we access one, we'll load the next one
anyway.
Furthermore the simplification is measurable, and a fair bit of it is
in various fast paths. I'd rather trade a bit of a cacheline footprint
for less overall complexity and faster code.
Thanks,
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