[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k0opt937.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:27:08 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mikael.beckius@...driver.com,
Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range_ns()
On Mon, Apr 26 2021 at 14:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:33:00PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> >> + force_local = base->cpu_base == this_cpu_ptr(&hrtimer_bases);
>> >> + force_local &= base->cpu_base->next_timer == timer;
>> >
>> > Using bitwise ops on a bool is cute and all, but isn't that more
>> > readable when written like:
>> >
>> > force_local = base->cpu_base == this_cpu_ptr(&hrtimer_bases) &&
>> > base->cpu_base->next_timer == timer;
>> >
>>
>> Which results in an extra conditional branch.
>
> Srlsy, compiler not smart enough?
gcc 8.3 is definitely not ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists