Re: [patch 00/17] CFS Bandwidth Control v7.1

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > The +1.5% increase in vanilla kernel context switching performance is 
> > unfortunate - where does that overhead come from?
> 
> Looking at the asm output, I think its partly because things like:
> 
> @@ -602,6 +618,8 @@ static void update_curr(struct cfs_rq *c
>                 cpuacct_charge(curtask, delta_exec);
>                 account_group_exec_runtime(curtask, delta_exec);
>         }
> +
> +       account_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq, delta_exec);
>  }
> 
> 
> +static void account_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> +               unsigned long delta_exec)
> +{
> +       if (!cfs_rq->runtime_enabled)
> +               return;
> +
> +       cfs_rq->runtime_remaining -= delta_exec;
> +       if (cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0)
> +               return;
> +
> +       assign_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq);
> +}
> 
> generate a call, only to then take the first branch out, marking that
> function __always_inline would cure the call problem. Going beyond that
> would be using static_branch() to track if there is any bandwidth
> tracking required at all.

Could jump labels be utilized perhaps?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/