Commit c6ee36c4 authored by Mike Galbraith's avatar Mike Galbraith Committed by Ingo Molnar

sched: Remove SYNC_WAKEUPS feature

Sync wakeups are critical functionality with a long history.  Remove it, we don't
need the branch or icache footprint.
Signed-off-by: default avatarMike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1268301817.6785.47.camel@marge.simson.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent f2e74eea
...@@ -2369,9 +2369,6 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, ...@@ -2369,9 +2369,6 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state,
unsigned long flags; unsigned long flags;
struct rq *rq; struct rq *rq;
if (!sched_feat(SYNC_WAKEUPS))
wake_flags &= ~WF_SYNC;
this_cpu = get_cpu(); this_cpu = get_cpu();
smp_wmb(); smp_wmb();
......
...@@ -22,14 +22,6 @@ SCHED_FEAT(WAKEUP_PREEMPT, 1) ...@@ -22,14 +22,6 @@ SCHED_FEAT(WAKEUP_PREEMPT, 1)
*/ */
SCHED_FEAT(ASYM_GRAN, 1) SCHED_FEAT(ASYM_GRAN, 1)
/*
* Use the SYNC wakeup hint, pipes and the likes use this to indicate
* the remote end is likely to consume the data we just wrote, and
* therefore has cache benefit from being placed on the same cpu, see
* also AFFINE_WAKEUPS.
*/
SCHED_FEAT(SYNC_WAKEUPS, 1)
/* /*
* Based on load and program behaviour, see if it makes sense to place * Based on load and program behaviour, see if it makes sense to place
* a newly woken task on the same cpu as the task that woke it -- * a newly woken task on the same cpu as the task that woke it --
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment