On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:35:51PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yes its the right rq, but the wrong time. > > Hmm. Just in case, it is not that I think this patch really makes sense, > but I'd like to understand why do you think it is wrong. > But it is not "after it switches out", it is after it switched back. D'uh I was being particularly dense it seems :/ Yes I think it is correct. You're now trading two atomic ops on a different cacheline than rq->lock for one atomic op on the rq->lock. Might be a win, esp. since hopefully there's a fair chance its the same runqueue. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
