Re: [PATCH] sched: Optimize branch hint in context_switch()

From: Avi Kivity
Date: Sun Nov 29 2009 - 10:26:16 EST


On 11/29/2009 05:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-29 at 17:12 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/29/2009 02:01 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
Branch hint profiling on my nehalem machine showed 88%
incorrect branch hints:

42017484 326957902 88 context_switch sched.c 3043
42038493 326953687 88 context_switch sched.c 3050

@@ -3040,14 +3040,14 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
*/
arch_start_context_switch(prev);

- if (likely(!mm)) {
+ if (unlikely(!mm)) {
next->active_mm = oldmm;
atomic_inc(&oldmm->mm_count);
enter_lazy_tlb(oldmm, next);
} else
switch_mm(oldmm, mm, next);

- if (likely(!prev->mm)) {
+ if (unlikely(!prev->mm)) {
prev->active_mm = NULL;
rq->prev_mm = oldmm;
}

I don't think either the original or the patch is correct. Whether or
not a task has an mm is entirely workload dependent, we shouldn't be
giving hints here.
There are reasons to still use branch hints, for example if the unlikely
branch is very expensive anyway and it pays to have the likely branch be
ever so slightly less expensive.

Now I don't think that applies here, but there are cases where such code
generation issues are the main motivator not the actual usage patterns.

These should be documented then to avoid patches removing them:

#define slowpath(x) unlikely(x)

if (slowpath(condition))
expensive_operation();

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/