cc'ed Ingo since he's maintainer.
On Thursday 09 March 2006 04:54, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I found that there's a possible small optimization right at the very
> beginning of schedule():
>
> if (likely(!current->exit_state)) {
> if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
>
> can be reversed into
>
> if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
> if (likely(!current->exit_state)) {
>
> This is a Good Thing since it avoids having to evaluate both checks,
> and both use current_thread_info() which has an inherent AGI stall risk on
> x86 CPUs if it cannot be inter-mingled with other unrelated opcodes.
>
> I'm a bit puzzled that this has not been done like that before.
> Probably since the exit_state check got added as an after-thought...
> Or did I miss some important reason here? (branch prediction??)
This looks good. See below.
> Patch against 2.6.16-rc5-mm3.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Mohr <[email protected]>
>
>
> --- linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm3/kernel/sched.c.orig 2006-03-08 18:36:58.000000000
> +0100 +++ linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm3/kernel/sched.c 2006-03-08 18:39:55.000000000
> +0100 @@ -3022,8 +3022,8 @@
> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
> */
> - if (likely(!current->exit_state)) {
> - if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
> + if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
> + if (likely(!current->exit_state)) {
I suspect that once we're in_atomic() then we're no longer likely to
be !current->exit_state
Probably better to just
if (unlikely(in_atomic())) {
if (!current->exit_state) {
Ingo?
Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
