Con Kolivas wrote on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:52 PM
> The relationship between INTERACTIVE_SLEEP and the ceiling is not perfect
> and not explicit enough. The sleep boost is not supposed to be any larger
> than without this code and the comment is not clear enough about what exactly
> it does, just the reason it does it.
>
> There is a ceiling to the priority beyond which tasks that only ever sleep
> for very long periods cannot surpass.
>
> Opportunity to micro-optimise and re-use the ceiling variable.
More opportunity to micro-optimize: now that you've put the clamp code of
p->sleep_avg in the common path, there is no need to clamp sleep_time at
the beginning of that function. Just let the calculation go through and
clamp the final value of p->sleep_avg to NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG at the end.
Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <[email protected]>
--- ./kernel/sched.c.orig 2006-05-18 12:51:45.000000000 -0700
+++ ./kernel/sched.c 2006-05-18 14:53:47.000000000 -0700
@@ -731,17 +731,10 @@
static int recalc_task_prio(task_t *p, unsigned long long now)
{
/* Caller must always ensure 'now >= p->timestamp' */
- unsigned long long __sleep_time = now - p->timestamp;
- unsigned long sleep_time;
+ unsigned long sleep_time = now - p->timestamp;
if (batch_task(p))
sleep_time = 0;
- else {
- if (__sleep_time > NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG)
- sleep_time = NS_MAX_SLEEP_AVG;
- else
- sleep_time = (unsigned long)__sleep_time;
- }
if (likely(sleep_time > 0)) {
/*
-
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]
