[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161025095811.50a5856a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:58:11 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:29:16 +0200
luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:09:52 +0200
> Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > +static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> > > dl_rq *dl_rq) +{
> > > + u64 se_bw = dl_se->dl_bw;
> > > +
> > > + dl_rq->running_bw += se_bw;
> > > +}
> >
> > why not...
> >
> > static *inline*
> > void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq
> > *dl_rq) {
> > dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->dl_bw;
> > }
> >
> > am I missing something?
>
> I do not know... Maybe I am the one missing something :)
> I assumed that the compiler is smart enough to inline the function (and
> to avoid creating a local variable on the stack), but if there is
> agreement I can change the function in this way.
>
>
I agree with Daniel, especially since I don't usually trust the
compiler. And the added variable is more of a distraction as it doesn't
seem to have any real purpose.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists