[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E106C9B.6020403@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 16:20:27 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>,
Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>, Jeff Law <law@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] KVM-GST: adjust scheduler cpu power
On 07/02/2011 01:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
> {
> s64 irq_delta = 0, steal = 0;
>
> rq->clock_task += delta;
>
> if ((irq_delta + steal)&& sched_feat(NONTASK_POWER))
> sched_rt_avg_update(rq, irq_delta + steal);
> }
>
> And we want it to emit the equivalent of:
>
> static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta)
> {
> rq->clock_task += delta;
> }
>
> Now Glauber is properly paranoid and doesn't trust his compiler (this is
> very hot code in the kernel so any extra code emitted here is sad) and
> chose the heavy handed CPP solution.
>
> Now without checking a all relevant gcc versions on all relevant
> architectures (see you in a few weeks etc..) can we actually rely on gcc
> doing such relatively simple things correct, or should we stick with CPP
> just to make sure?
I'm pretty sure any relevant version of gcc will do the right optimizations.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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