![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 21:17 -0700, chen Shang wrote: > > Hi Chen, > > With the added branch and the extra icache footprint, it isn't clear > > that this would be a win. > > > > Also, you didn't say where your statistics came from (what workload). > > > > So you really need to start by demonstrating some increase on some workload. > > > > Also, minor comments on the patch: please work against mm kernels, > > please follow > > kernel coding style, and don't change schedstat output format in the > > same patch > > (makes it easier for those with schedstat parsing tools). > > > Hi Nick, > > Thank you very much for your comments. This is the first time of my > kernel hacking. I will reduce the lines of changes as much as > possible. As regard to the statistics, there are just count, ie, the > total number of priority-recalculations vs. the number of priority > changed from the former recalculation. A kernel profile (check list archives for oprofile) would easily demonstrate any performance gain. On my system the residency of schedule() is around 1% so this will be easy to spot. Lee - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-05-20 06:36 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||