On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 21:17 -0700, chen Shang wrote:
> > Hi Chen,
> > With the added branch and the extra icache footprint, it isn't clear
> > that this would be a win.
> >
> > Also, you didn't say where your statistics came from (what workload).
> >
> > So you really need to start by demonstrating some increase on some workload.
> >
> > Also, minor comments on the patch: please work against mm kernels,
> > please follow
> > kernel coding style, and don't change schedstat output format in the
> > same patch
> > (makes it easier for those with schedstat parsing tools).
> >
> Hi Nick,
>
> Thank you very much for your comments. This is the first time of my
> kernel hacking. I will reduce the lines of changes as much as
> possible. As regard to the statistics, there are just count, ie, the
> total number of priority-recalculations vs. the number of priority
> changed from the former recalculation.
A kernel profile (check list archives for oprofile) would easily
demonstrate any performance gain. On my system the residency of
schedule() is around 1% so this will be easy to spot.
Lee
-
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]
