Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:22:15 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: re-inline sched functions |
| |
* Chen, Kenneth W <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 1:32 AM > > > -static unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p) > > > +static inline unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p) > > > > the patch looks good except this one - could you try to undo it and > > re-measure? task_timeslice() is not used in any true fastpath, if it > > makes any difference then the performance difference must be some other > > artifact. > > Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 10:40 AM > > OK, I'll re-measure. Yeah, I agree that this function is not in the fastpath. > > Ingo is right, re-measured on our benchmark setup and did not see any > difference whether task_timeslice is inlined or not. So if people > want to take inline keyword out for that function, we won't complain > :-)
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
uninline task_timeslice() - reduces code footprint noticeably, and it's slowpath code.
--- kernel/sched.c.orig +++ kernel/sched.c @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ #define SCALE_PRIO(x, prio) \ max(x * (MAX_PRIO - prio) / (MAX_USER_PRIO/2), MIN_TIMESLICE) -static inline unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p) +static unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p) { if (p->static_prio < NICE_TO_PRIO(0)) return SCALE_PRIO(DEF_TIMESLICE*4, p->static_prio); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |