[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xhsmh4jl8ckcf.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 16:21:36 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] sched: Simplify ttwu()
On 01/08/23 22:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Use guards to reduce gotos and simplify control flow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+), 112 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3706,14 +3706,14 @@ ttwu_stat(struct task_struct *p, int cpu
> struct sched_domain *sd;
>
> __schedstat_inc(p->stats.nr_wakeups_remote);
> - rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + guard(rcu)();
This isn't strictly equivalent, right? AFAICT that pushes the
rcu_read_unlock() further down than it currently is - not a big deal, but
indentation aside scoped_guard() would preserve that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists