[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1440610876.23728.101.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:41:16 -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 2/3] timer: Check thread timers only when there are
active thread timers
On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 13:04 -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> - check_thread_timers(tsk, &firing);
> + if (!task_cputime_zero(&tsk->cputime_expires))
> + check_thread_timers(tsk, &firing);
>
> Sincere question; I'm not certain myself: would it make more sense to put
> this shortcut into check_thread_timers()?
>
> It seems more like an optimization of that function than something the
> caller needs to know about.
Yes, I also thought it might be better if we add something like:
if (task_cputime_zero(&tsk->cputime_expires)
return;
in check_thread_timers(). The reason I made it this way though is
because in the next few lines, we do a similar check before calling
check_process_timers(), and I wanted to keep things consistent.
However, perhaps we can consider also moving that
tsk->signal->cputimer.running check into check_process_timers() too.
Thanks for the suggestions.
--
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