* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh good. Thanks for getting to the bottom of it. We have normally
> disliked too much runtime tunables in the scheduler, so I assume these
> are mostly going away or under a CONFIG option for 2.6.23? Or...?
yeah, they are all already under CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG. (it's just that the
add-on optimization is not upstream yet - the tunings are still being
tested) Btw., with SCHED_DEBUG we now also have your domain-tree sysctl
patch upstream, which has been in -mm for a near eternity.
> What CPU did you get these numbers on? Do the indirect calls hurt much
> on those without an indirect predictor? (I'll try running some tests).
it was on an older Athlon64 X2. I never saw indirect calls really
hurting on modern x86 CPUs - dont both CPU makers optimize them pretty
efficiently? (as long as the target function is always the same - which
it is here.)
> I must say that I don't really like the indirect calls a great deal,
> and they could be eliminated just with a couple of branches and direct
> calls.
yeah - i'll try that too. We can make the indirect call the uncommon
case and a NULL pointer be the common case, combined with a 'default',
direct function call. But i doubt it makes a big (or even measurable)
difference.
Ingo
-
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]
