[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFCkUUCYchYpB/0W@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:28:01 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ti Zhou <x2019cwm@...x.ca>, Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] tick/nohz: Add tick_nohz_full_this_cpu()
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:37:00PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Optimize further the check for local full dynticks CPU. Testing directly
> tick_nohz_full_cpu(smp_processor_id()) is suboptimal because the
> compiler first fetches the CPU number and only then processes the
> static key.
>
> It's best to evaluate the static branch before anything.
Or you do tricky things like this ;-)
diff --git a/include/linux/tick.h b/include/linux/tick.h
index 7340613c7eff..bd4a6b055b80 100644
--- a/include/linux/tick.h
+++ b/include/linux/tick.h
@@ -185,13 +185,12 @@ static inline bool tick_nohz_full_enabled(void)
return tick_nohz_full_running;
}
-static inline bool tick_nohz_full_cpu(int cpu)
-{
- if (!tick_nohz_full_enabled())
- return false;
-
- return cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask);
-}
+#define tick_nohz_full_cpu(_cpu) ({ \
+ bool __ret = false; \
+ if (tick_nohz_full_enabled()) \
+ __ret = cpumask_test_cpu((_cpu), tick_nohz_full_mask); \
+ __ret; \
+})
static inline void tick_nohz_full_add_cpus_to(struct cpumask *mask)
{
Powered by blists - more mailing lists