Message-Id: <200503242116.j2OLGwg07920@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: RE: re-inline sched functions
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:16:58 -0800
Thread-Index: AcUmHSnA1AaWf6w4SiCCPMSE/Sx0OgAS0ADQApN2z8A=
In-Reply-To: 
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 985
Lines: 22

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 :-)


-
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/