On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 03:30:43PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote: > > > 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? That. > 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 :-) well, it's nearly 1am, I'm not thinking very much :-) Changing those comments seems fine when you add the freezer thing.
