On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 23:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > If the numbers say that there is no performance difference (or even
> > better: that the new code performs better or fixes some latency issue
> > or whatever), I'll be very happy. But if the numbers say that it's
> > worse, no amount of cleanliness really changes that.
>
> Most of the tasklet uses are in rarely used or arcane drivers - in fact
> none of my 10 test-boxes utilizes _any_ tasklet in any way that could
> even get close to mattering to performance. In other words: i just
> cannot test this, nor do i think that others will really test this.
This is exactly why I included that CONFIG option in the first series.
Because, I only have a handful of hardware that actually uses tasklets.
And all those pr_debugs I had where turned on on most of my boxes. I
was not flooded with prints either (every function including
tasklet_schedule had a print).
So, basically, I can't do benchmarks. I was hoping to get this into -mm
with a easy way for people, who have hardware that uses tasklets
extensively, to run it with tasklets on and off to see if there is a
difference. My fear of not having a config option to switch between the
two (for -mm only) is that we may lose benchmarking from those that are
not comfortable at removing this patch from -mm. There are people out
there that download and test the -mm tree straight from kernel.org.
Just because someone compiles their own kernel doesn't mean they can (or
will) patch it.
-- Steve
-
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]
