* Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > Since this patch does add two extra MOVs,
> > I did benchmark these patches. They add exactly one cycle
> > to system call code path on my Sandy Bridge CPU.
>
> Personally, I'm willing to pay that cycle. It could be a bigger
> savings on context switch, and the simplification it enables is
> pretty good.
But, but ... context switches are a relative slow path, compared to
system calls. And I say this with the scheduler maintainer hat on as
well.
So this is not a good bargain IMHO, assuming it's not some _huge_
difference in maintainability - but having an extra percpu field
isn't really much of a problem.
I don't claim that we couldn't in some other situation decide that a
certain type of speedup isn't worth it - but what's the big problem
here? A bit of arithmetics shouldn't be a problem?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
