On Tuesday 13 June 2006 07:08, Keith Owens wrote:
> Andi Kleen (on Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:56:45 +0200) wrote:
> >
> >> I have previously suggested a lightweight solution that pins a process
> >> to a cpu
> >
> >That is preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() effectively
> >It's also light weight as much as these things can be.
>
> The difference being that preempt_disable() does not allow the code to
> sleep. There are some places where we want to use cpu local data
> and
> the code can tolerate preemption and even sleeping, as long as the
> process schedules back on the same cpu.
Seems like a pretty obscure case to optimize for.
Anyways if you want to do that you can always do
disable_preempt();
set thread affinity mask to current cpu
enable_preempt();
do weird stuff and sleep ... ;
restore affinity mask
Can any of these people proposing "solutions" in this thread
demonstrate this stuff is actually performance critical?
-Andi
-
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]
