* Chen, Kenneth W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 1:32 AM
> > > -static unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p)
> > > +static inline unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p)
> >
> > the patch looks good except this one - could you try to undo it and
> > re-measure? task_timeslice() is not used in any true fastpath, if it
> > makes any difference then the performance difference must be some other
> > artifact.
>
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote on Friday, March 11, 2005 10:40 AM
> > OK, I'll re-measure. Yeah, I agree that this function is not in the
> > fastpath.
>
> Ingo is right, re-measured on our benchmark setup and did not see any
> difference whether task_timeslice is inlined or not. So if people
> want to take inline keyword out for that function, we won't complain
> :-)
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
uninline task_timeslice() - reduces code footprint noticeably, and it's
slowpath code.
--- kernel/sched.c.orig
+++ kernel/sched.c
@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@
#define SCALE_PRIO(x, prio) \
max(x * (MAX_PRIO - prio) / (MAX_USER_PRIO/2), MIN_TIMESLICE)
-static inline unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p)
+static unsigned int task_timeslice(task_t *p)
{
if (p->static_prio < NICE_TO_PRIO(0))
return SCALE_PRIO(DEF_TIMESLICE*4, p->static_prio);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
