[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <862a50f7a02828c92a19833ea0655da8951ddcd4.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2023 08:45:22 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, bristot@...hat.com,
bsegall@...gle.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, hdanton@...a.com,
ionela.voinescu@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
len.brown@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, ricardo.neri@...el.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, v-songbaohua@...o.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, vschneid@...hat.com, x86@...nel.org,
yangyicong@...ilicon.com, yu.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Add SMT4 group_smt_balance handling
On Wed, 2023-09-06 at 10:23 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2023 at 10:54:09AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
>
> > > > + goto fully_busy;
> > > > + break;
> > >
> > > This is really daft; why can't this simply be: fallthrough; ? At the
> > > very least that break must go.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, the break should go. I was adding the goto to prevent compiler
> > from complaining about fall through code.
>
> But that's what we have the fallthrough keyword for, no?
Okay. Will update patch to use fallthrough once Shrikanth has
a chance to test the update to use has_spare path for SMT4.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists