lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] remove jump_label optimization for perf sched events
On 11/17/2011 03:47 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:24 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 11/17/2011 03:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:00 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >
> > > > > That said, I'd much rather throttle this particular jump label than
> > > > > remove it altogether, some people really don't like all this scheduler
> > > > > hot path crap.
> > > > What about moving perf_event_task_sched() to sched_(in|out)_preempt_notifiers?
> > > > preempt notifiers checking is already on the scheduler hot path, so no
> > > > additional overhead for perf case.
> > >
> > > Same problem really, some people complain about the overhead of preempt
> > > notifiers, also not all kernels have those in.
> >
> > We could combine the two, sort-circuit preempt notifiers with jump
> > labels if empty && not much activity on them.
>
> Jump-labels are still more efficient, also I don't much like preempt
> notifiers.
>
> > > Futhermore I loathe notifier lists because they obscure wtf is done.
> >
> > That's life in a general purpose kernel, if everyone gets their hook in
> > to keep their code clean, the scheduler will bloat.
>
> Uhm, no. The bloat isn't different, the only difference is you can
> actually see it. So I very much prefer direct hooks.
>
> > An advantage of preempt notifiers is that you can make the perf code
> > modular.
>
> Yeah, and you know I loathe modules even more.

Is there something you like?

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-17 15:15    [W:0.054 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site