[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8e3c7f04-0d1e-cbe7-4762-b2b5cd42c79b@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:27:59 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
Dietmar.Eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition
Hi,
On 26/09/2018 16:12, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> The alignment of the condition is off, clean that up.
>
> Also, logical operators have lower precedence than bitwise/relational
> operators, so remove one layer of parentheses to make the condition a
> bit simpler to follow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6bd142d..9cf93ba 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8783,9 +8783,9 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>
> out_one_pinned:
> /* tune up the balancing interval */
> - if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
> - sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> - (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
> + if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
> + sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> + sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
> sd->balance_interval *= 2;
>
> ld_moved = 0;
>
Is there anything else that should be done for these two patches?
Thanks,
Valentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists