[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170704100129.5kkzn24awk3uzdtk@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:01:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: fransklaver@...il.com, hpa@...or.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
wanpeng.li@...mail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
garsilva@...eddedor.com, sgruszka@...hat.com,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/cputime: Refactor the cputime_adjust()
code
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> Argh, no... That code was perfectly fine. The new code otoh is
> convoluted crap.
>
> It had the form:
>
> if (exception1)
> deal with exception1
>
> if (execption2)
> deal with exception2
>
> do normal stuff
>
> Which is as simple and straight forward as it gets.
>
> The new code otoh reads like:
>
> if (!exception1) {
> if (exception2)
> deal with exception 2
> else
> do normal stuff
> }
>
> which is absolute shit.
>
> So NAK on this.
Agreed - I've queued up a revert.
Note that I fixed the old comment, which was arguably wrong:
/*
* If either stime or both stime and utime are 0, assume all runtime is
* userspace. Once a task gets some ticks, the monotonicy code at
* 'update' will ensure things converge to the observed ratio.
*/
The correct comment is something like:
/*
* If either stime or utime are 0, assume all runtime is userspace.
* Once a task gets some ticks, the monotonicy code at 'update:'
* will ensure things converge to the observed ratio.
*/
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists