Re: [patch 9/9] Scheduler profiling - Use conditional calls

On Wed, 30 May 2007 10:00:34 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:

> @@ -2990,7 +2991,8 @@
>  			print_irqtrace_events(prev);
>  		dump_stack();
>  	}
> -	profile_hit(SCHED_PROFILING, __builtin_return_address(0));
> +	cond_call(profile_on,
> +		profile_hit(SCHED_PROFILING, __builtin_return_address(0)));
>  

That's looking pretty neat.  Do you have any before-and-after performance
figures for i386 and for a non-optimised architecture?
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [patch 9/9] Scheduler profiling - Use conditional calls
    • From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [patch 0/9] Conditional Calls - for 2.6.22-rc2-mm1
    • From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
  • [patch 9/9] Scheduler profiling - Use conditional calls
    • From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [2.6.21.1] running powertop 1.5 for 10 seconds causes a kernel panic
• Next by Date: Re: [patch 8/9] F00F bug fixup for i386 - use conditional calls
• Previous by thread: [patch 9/9] Scheduler profiling - Use conditional calls
• Next by thread: Re: [patch 9/9] Scheduler profiling - Use conditional calls
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]