On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 12:15:26PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 3/26/19 11:52 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:12:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> To touch on one of the issues I raised. AFAICT the schedulers don't use
> >> SCHED_GROUP_P for dealing with tablejumps. The
On 3/26/19 11:52 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:12:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> To touch on one of the issues I raised. AFAICT the schedulers don't use
>> SCHED_GROUP_P for dealing with tablejumps. They're used for
>> cc0-user/setter, fused insns and the like. That'
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 05:12:05PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> To touch on one of the issues I raised. AFAICT the schedulers don't use
> SCHED_GROUP_P for dealing with tablejumps. They're used for
> cc0-user/setter, fused insns and the like. That's a bit of a surprise.
>
> Given that the table isn
On 1/23/19 8:11 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 16:52 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
>>
>>> For that, I'm not sure. Your patch will leave the tablejump
>>> unscheduled at
>>> all, i.e. any fields like INSN_TICK would be unfilled a
On Wed, 2019-01-23 at 16:52 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
>
> > For that, I'm not sure. Your patch will leave the tablejump
> > unscheduled at
> > all, i.e. any fields like INSN_TICK would be unfilled and thus the
> > later
> > passes like bundli
