linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Optimize !CONFIG_NO_HZ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160411182129.GB22628@lerouge>
Date:	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:21:31 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....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 Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:53:01AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 4/11/2016 9:18 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >So I tried and it warns about the unused variable tickless_load, so I
> >would need two scattered ifdeffery in the function:
> >
> >@@ -4528,7 +4529,9 @@ decay_load_missed(unsigned long load, unsigned long missed_updates, int idx)
> >  static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> >  			    unsigned long pending_updates)
> >  {
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> >  	unsigned long tickless_load = this_rq->cpu_load[0];
> >+#endif
> 
> Just move the initialization down to the first use, as a regular
> assignment, and add __maybe_unused to the declaration, and the compiler
> will then keep quiet (see Documentation/CodingStyle).
> 
> I have no comment on which of the approaches looks better overall,
> but I think using __maybe_unused definitely improves this approach.

I thought about it yeah. I usually avoid __maybe_unused because it's often
a bad sign concerning the code layout.

Now in this precise case I wouldn't mind though. Peter what's your opinion?

Thanks.