[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090512102939.GB11714@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:29:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
balajirrao@...il.com, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: cpuacct: Use bigger percpu counter
batch values for stats counters
* Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> [2009-05-12 19:13:42]:
>
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIGCONFIG_SMP
> > > > + cpuacct_batch = jiffies_to_cputime(percpu_counter_batch);
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Slow down and compile patches before sending them out.. please. That
> > > is a basic expectation if you expect it to be merged.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this mistake pass test successfully ;)
> > it because cpuacct_batch=0 works even SMP.
> >
>
> OK, BTW, using an #ifdef right in the middle of a function makes
> the code harder to read, can't we use an inline function to
> abstract out SMP?
or rather, to make cpuacct_batch have a sane value on UP too. (1?
0?)
Ingo
--
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