[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151014092630.GX6455@byungchulpark-X58A-UD3R>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:26:30 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yuyang.du@...el.com, pjt@...gle.com, efault@....de,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: make each sched class handle its rq
assignment in their own class
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 05:42:09PM +0900, byungchul.park@....com wrote:
> > +static inline void set_task_rq(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > + const struct sched_class *class;
> > +
> > + for_each_class(class) {
> > + if (class->set_task_rq)
> > + class->set_task_rq(p, cpu);
> > + }
> > +}
>
> So I worry about this, because the class structures are not all in the
> same translation unit, GCC cannot (without -fwhole-program) optimize
> that all away.
i wondered if it was so, and it was.
>
> This means we'll do 5 cacheline loads and 2 indirect calls, on _every_
> cpu migration.
i agree with your this concern. to avoid this concern, it can be done by
hard coding as current code.. but we will lose code flexability. i thought
migration overhead was not so important since it hardly happens.
> --
> 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/
--
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