linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

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: <20161025200458.1a2070d7@utopia>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2016 20:04:58 +0200
From:   Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 09:58:11 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> 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.

Ok, then; I'll fix this in the next round of patches.


		Thanks,
			Luca