[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161118142359.GK3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:58:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
I don't think there's anything here to trust the compiler on. Either
it inlines or it doesn't, it should generate 'correct' code either way.
If it doesn't inline, its a dumb compiler and it will make these dumb
decisions throughout the tree and your kernel will be slow, not my
problem really ;-)
That said, I agree that the single line thing is actually easier to
read.
That said; there's something to be said for:
u64 running_bw;
static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
{
u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->dl_bw;
SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw < old); /* overflow */
}
static void sub_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
{
u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
dl_rq->running_bw -= dl_se->dl_bw;
SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > old); /* underflow */
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists