Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched: make each sched class handle its rq assignment in their own class

[Byungchul Park]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:30:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 06:26:30PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:00:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 05:42:09PM +0900, byungchul.park@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > +static inline void set_task_rq(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	const struct sched_class *class;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for_each_class(class) {
> > > > +		if (class->set_task_rq)
> > > > +			class->set_task_rq(p, cpu);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > So I worry about this, because the class structures are not all in the
> > > same translation unit, GCC cannot (without -fwhole-program) optimize
> > > that all away.
> > 
> > i wondered if it was so, and it was.
> 
> --combine might be enough, and might make sense for all the
> kernel/sched/ file, but that too is not something we currently do.
> 
> > > This means we'll do 5 cacheline loads and 2 indirect calls, on _every_
> > > cpu migration.
> > 
> > i agree with your this concern. to avoid this concern, it can be done by
> > hard coding as current code.. but we will lose code flexability. i thought
> > migration overhead was not so important since it hardly happens.
> 
> It happens quite a lot, just not _as_ often as regular context
> switching.

ok, i will take the optimization into account in the migration case.

thanks,
byungchul

> --
> 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/
--
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/