lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Consolidate nohz CPU load update code
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:18:40PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:01:29PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> > > +static void __update_cpu_load_nohz(struct rq *this_rq,
> > > + unsigned long curr_jiffies,
> >
> > Do we need to pass current jiffies as a function parameter?
>
> I guess we don't, I just wasn't much sure of the possible overhead of READ_ONCE()

Ah. But I think passing an additional argument can cause additional
overhead, too, e.g. additional store/load on stack. But I am not sure
which one is larger, and it depends on architecture and abi.

>
> >
> > > + unsigned long load,
> > > + int active)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long pending_updates;
> > > +
> > > + pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
> > > + if (pending_updates) {
> > > + this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
> > > + /*
> > > + * In the regular NOHZ case, we were idle, this means load 0.
> > > + * In the NOHZ_FULL case, we were non-idle, we should consider
> > > + * its weighted load.
> > > + */
> > > + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates, active);
> > > + }
> > > +}

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-01-20 03:21    [W:0.062 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site