[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1440610261.23728.91.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:31:01 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] timer: Optimize fastpath_timer_check()
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 12:57 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> > if (!task_cputime_zero(&tsk->cputime_expires)) {
> >+ struct task_cputime task_sample;
> >+ cputime_t utime, stime;
> >+
> >+ task_cputime(tsk, &utime, &stime);
> >+ task_sample.utime = utime;
> >+ task_sample.stime = stime;
> >+ task_sample.sum_exec_runtime = tsk->se.sum_exec_runtime;
>
> Er, task_sample.[us]time are already the correct types.
> Whay are the local variables necessary? How about:
>
> if (!task_cputime_zero(&tsk->cputime_expires)) {
> + struct task_cputime task_sample;
> +
> + task_cputime(tsk, &task_simple.utime, &task_simple.stime);
> + task_sample.sum_exec_runtime = tsk->se.sum_exec_runtime;
Yes, good point. Now that we're moving the task_cputime() call to after
the task_sample structure is declared, the utime and stime local
variables are not required anymore.
--
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