[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgCRJx74T0NyRrpWi6XRwy50y8Wzap5XK_3-hN8dbuxTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:34:28 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] slub: Make PREEMPT_RT support less convoluted
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> The slub code already has a few helpers depending on PREEMPT_RT. Add a few
> more and get rid of the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT conditionals all over the place.
>
> No functional change.
Looks like a fine cleanup, but I'd prefer that
#define use_lockless_fast_path() {(true)/(false)}
to look much less like it's some function call. The first read-through
it looked like some very dynamic thing to me.
Just doing
#define USE_LOCKLESS_FAST_PATH ..
would make it much more visually obvious that it's not some kind of
complex run-time decision.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists