[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160402072337.GF2906@worktop>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 09:23:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: Optimize tick periodic cpu load updates
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Don't bother with the whole pending tickless cpu load machinery if
> we run a tick periodic kernel. That's less job for the CPU on ticks.
Again, the changelog really could use help. Is this a pure optimization
patch? If so, do you have numbers?
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -585,8 +585,10 @@ struct rq {
> #endif
> #define CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX 5
> unsigned long cpu_load[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX];
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> +# ifdef CONFIG_SMP
I'm not a fan of this #ifdef indenting and nothing near there uses this
style, so please don't introduce it here.
> unsigned long last_load_update_tick;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> +# endif
> u64 nohz_stamp;
> unsigned long nohz_flags;
> #endif
> --
> 2.7.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists