Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> writes:
>> >
>> > Its not that cheap. The ChangeLog included my own numbers, on a
>> > Pentium M machine. (i686, 1.6 GHz, 1.5 GB ram)
>> >
>> > Without "if (need_resched())" (so calling need_resched() X.XXX.XXX
>> > times), each run takes 88ms
>> >
>> > With the extra check (and *much* less function calls), each run
>> > takes 25ms
ms?!? The numbers sound wrong. Wrong unit?
>> >
>>
>> Looking at cond_resched(), I think the extra cost comes from
>> "mov %esp,%edx ; and $0xffffe000,%edx" (current_thread_info())
>>
>> I dont have oprofile numbers yet, but I suspect CPU may have some
>> delays to compute this pointer value, since %esp is probably 'busy'
>> because of the preceding "call"
>
> yeah the explicit reference makes the stack pointer tracking engine do a
> commit I suspect which then also creates a data dependency in the code
> flow.
>
> however... this is likely a good argument for making cond_resched() as a
> whole a #define (or inline) that does this test and then calls the out
> of line code (which then doesn't need to retest, so it avoids the
> double test)...
Disadvantage would be that might_sleep would be commonly skipped then
(unless you actually need to reschedule)
But perhaps that's not a big issue.
-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]
