Re: [RFC PATCH] posix-cpu-timers: optimize callingthread_group_cputime()
From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Fri Jun 12 2009 - 10:30:43 EST
To clarify, I am not arguing against this patch, just a queston.
On 06/12, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:09:46 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:39 +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > - times->utime = cputime_add(times->utime, t->utime);
> > > - times->stime = cputime_add(times->stime, t->stime);
> > > - times->sum_exec_runtime += t->se.sum_exec_runtime;
> > > + if (mask & TG_CPUCLOCK_UTIME)
> > > + times->utime = cputime_add(times->utime, t->utime);
> > > + if (mask & TG_CPUCLOCK_STIME)
> > > + times->stime = cputime_add(times->stime, t->stime);
> > > + if (mask & TG_CPUCLOCK_SCHED)
> > > + times->sum_exec_runtime += t->se.sum_exec_runtime;
> > Does adding 3 branches really make it faster?
> Actually I did not any benchmarking yet, so I don't know what is the real
> impact of the patch. I hope it make things taster but the result can be
> opposite from my expectations.
I agree with Peter, if we complicate the code it would be nice to know
this really makes it faster. Besides, thread_group_cputime() should not
be called that often.
Perhaps it makes sense to turn ->running into bitmask though, this should
"obviously" speed up account_group_xxx() helpers.
But in that case, perhaps stop_process_timers() should accept bitmask too?
otherwise this doesn't look "complete".
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/