Looking at the latency traces it appears that sched_clock could be
optimized a bit:
evolutio-16296 0D.h4 32us : activate_task (try_to_wake_up)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4 33us : sched_clock (activate_task)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4 33us : check_tsc_unstable (sched_clock)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4 34us : tsc_read_c3_time (sched_clock)
evolutio-16296 0D.h4 35us : recalc_task_prio (activate_task)
check_tsc_unstable and tsc_read_c3_time appear to be new. Here they
are:
49 /* Code to mark and check if the TSC is unstable
50 * due to cpufreq or due to unsynced TSCs
51 */
52 static int tsc_unstable;
53 int check_tsc_unstable(void)
54 {
55 return tsc_unstable;
56 }
73 u64 tsc_read_c3_time(void)
74 {
75 return tsc_c3_offset;
76 }
Shouldn't these be inlined or something? I know it's only a few
microseconds, but it seems like excessive function call overhead to me.
I don't use power management and the TSC is stable on this machine. Why
do we have to call these simple accessor functions over and over?
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]
