![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 07:08, Keith Owens wrote: > Andi Kleen (on Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:56:45 +0200) wrote: > >> >> I have previously suggested a lightweight solution that pins a process > >> to a cpu > >> >That is preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() effectively > >It's also light weight as much as these things can be.> > The difference being that preempt_disable() does not allow the code to > sleep. There are some places where we want to use cpu local data > and > the code can tolerate preemption and even sleeping, as long as the > process schedules back on the same cpu. Seems like a pretty obscure case to optimize for. Anyways if you want to do that you can always do disable_preempt(); set thread affinity mask to current cpu enable_preempt(); do weird stuff and sleep ... ; restore affinity mask Can any of these people proposing "solutions" in this thread demonstrate this stuff is actually performance critical? -Andi - 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: 2006-06-13 05:21 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||