[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87d0771swr.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 22:28:20 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: psodagud@...eaurora.org
Cc: john.stultz@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, saravanak@...gle.com,
pkondeti@...eaurora.org, Joonwoo Park <joonwoop@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really not bound to a cpu
psodagud@...eaurora.org writes:
> On 2020-05-06 06:28, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>> +struct timer_base timer_base_deferrable;
>>> unsigned int sysctl_timer_migration = 1;
>>>
>>> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(timers_migration_enabled);
>>> @@ -841,8 +842,14 @@ static inline struct timer_base
>>> *get_timer_cpu_base(u32 tflags, u32 cpu)
>>> * If the timer is deferrable and NO_HZ_COMMON is set then we need
>>> * to use the deferrable base.
>>> */
>>> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) && (tflags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE))
>>> - base = per_cpu_ptr(&timer_bases[BASE_DEF], cpu);
>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON) && (tflags & TIMER_DEFERRABLE))
>>> {
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>>> + base = &timer_base_deferrable;
>>> +#endif
>>
>> There are definitely smarter ways of solving this than sprinkling
>> #ifdef's around the code.
>
> I am able to understand all other comments and I will address all those
> comments in the next patch set.
> It is not clear to me how to avoid #ifdef's in this case. Could you
> please share an example here?
The answer is further down already:
>> Stub functions exist to avoid this unreadable #ifdef garbage.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists