[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200624122819.GG4781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 14:28:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/uclamp: Protect uclamp fast path code with
static key
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 09:34:02AM +0200, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > +static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(sched_uclamp_unused);
>
> I would personally prefer a non negated semantic.
That's what I said earlier as well.
> > + */
> > + if (static_branch_likely(&sched_uclamp_unused))
> > + return;
>
> Moreover, something like:
>
> if (static_key_false(&sched_uclamp_enabled))
> return;
>
> is not just good enough?
static_key_true/false() are the deprecated API.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists