[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160408174414.GE1087@worktop>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 19:44:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Optimize !CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON cpu load updates
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 02:55:22PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > @@ -4540,17 +4568,8 @@ static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> > >
> > > /* scale is effectively 1 << i now, and >> i divides by scale */
> > >
> > > - old_load = this_rq->cpu_load[i];
> > #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> > > - old_load = decay_load_missed(old_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
> > > - if (tickless_load) {
> > > - old_load -= decay_load_missed(tickless_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
> > > - /*
> > > - * old_load can never be a negative value because a
> > > - * decayed tickless_load cannot be greater than the
> > > - * original tickless_load.
> > > - */
> > > - old_load += tickless_load;
> > > - }
> > #endif
>
> Ah sure, if you prefer it that way, I can do that.
Yes please. I normally favour the thing you did, but here it makes
tricky code that much harder to read.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists