On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 01:46 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Hmm, well this is rather a slow path, I would say. I'd prefer not to > modify schedule in this way (if we just get scheduled back on after > being switched away, the subsequent call to schedule is going to be > cache hot and not do too much work). > > preempt_enable_noresched maybe if you really care, would close up the > window even more. But is it really worthwhile? We'd want to see numbers > (when in doubt, keep it simpler). I initially did the preempt_enable_no_resched() thing and that showed some improvement for PREEMPT=y kernels (lost the numbers though). When I redid all the patches I tried closing that last hole by doing that __schedule() thing, never realizing that schedule() would then get extra overhead,.. d'0h. I agree that that isn't worth it. I shall revert to preempt_enable_no_resched() and try to get some new numbers. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
