Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:56:13 +0530 | From | Nikanth Karthikesan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: minor optimization |
| |
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 5:48 PM, "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote: > The only legitimate possibility of having the fair_sched_class > returning no task in this case is when 'rq->nr_running == > rq->cfs.nr_running == 0'.
Yes, I think so.
> iow, a possible optimization would be just the following check : > > if (rq->nr_running == 0) > return idle_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq); > at the beginning of pick_next_task(). > > (or maybe put it at the beginning of the > if (likely(rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.nr_running)) {} block as we > already have 'likely()' there). >
But that might add a test before the case we want to optimize the most. I just thought of taking advantage of a case where we know rq->nr_running==0, instead of throwing away that information.
Thanks Nikanth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |