On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 23:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If the numbers say that there is no performance difference (or even > > better: that the new code performs better or fixes some latency issue > > or whatever), I'll be very happy. But if the numbers say that it's > > worse, no amount of cleanliness really changes that. > > Most of the tasklet uses are in rarely used or arcane drivers - in fact > none of my 10 test-boxes utilizes _any_ tasklet in any way that could > even get close to mattering to performance. In other words: i just > cannot test this, nor do i think that others will really test this.
This is exactly why I included that CONFIG option in the first series. Because, I only have a handful of hardware that actually uses tasklets. And all those pr_debugs I had where turned on on most of my boxes. I was not flooded with prints either (every function including tasklet_schedule had a print). So, basically, I can't do benchmarks. I was hoping to get this into -mm with a easy way for people, who have hardware that uses tasklets extensively, to run it with tasklets on and off to see if there is a difference. My fear of not having a config option to switch between the two (for -mm only) is that we may lose benchmarking from those that are not comfortable at removing this patch from -mm. There are people out there that download and test the -mm tree straight from kernel.org. Just because someone compiles their own kernel doesn't mean they can (or will) patch it. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
