On 9/8/2023 3:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 01:08:07PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote: > >>> Perhaps we should start off by doing the below, instead of making it >>> more complicated instead. I suppose you're right about the overhead, but >>> run a hackbench just to make sure or something. >>> >> >> I ran perf bench sched message -g 40 -l 40 with the v3 patch [1]. After 60 >> iterations each, I don't see a significant difference on my arm64 platform: >> both samples ~normal and ~eq variance w/t-test p-value: 0.79. >> >> We also ran typical high level benchmarks for our SoCs (antutu, >> geekbench, et. al) and didn't see any regressions there. > > So if you would've made this 2 patches, the first removing the ifdef, > then the changelog for that patch would be a good place to mention it > doesn't measurably regress things. No problem, easily done. > As a bonus, it then makes your other changes smaller too ;-) Did you mean that each commit is smaller but overall delta is the same or something else? I still wanted to update comments on saved_state in kernel/sched/core.c as it gives good explanation of what is going on. I have split the commit but want to make sure I make the changes you were thinking :-) Thanks, Elliot
