[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A655B0.9020002@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:41:20 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuacct: add a branch prediction
Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> [2009-02-26 15:40:15]:
>
>> cpuacct_charge() is in fast-path, and checking of !cpuacct_susys.active
>> always returns false after cpuacct has been initialized at system boot.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
>> index 410eec4..fd2f7fc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
>> @@ -9589,7 +9589,7 @@ static void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
>> struct cpuacct *ca;
>> int cpu;
>>
>> - if (!cpuacct_subsys.active)
>> + if (unlikely(!cpuacct_subsys.active))
>
> What happens if most distros make cpuacct_subsys active? Can we decide
> on unlikely depending on how the system is configured?
>
Note, it's ->active but not ->disabled. ;)
And note, I make it "unlikely(!cpuacct_subsys.active)", but not "unlikely(cpuacct_subsys.active)"
->active can't be configured by users. If CONFIG_CGROUP_CPUACCT is enabled,
cpuacct_subsys.active will be set to true after cpuacct is initialized.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists