lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:58:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > I agree with Daniel, especially since I don't usually trust the
> > compiler. And the added variable is more of a distraction as it
> > doesn't seem to have any real purpose.
>
> I don't think there's anything here to trust the compiler on. Either
> it inlines or it doesn't, it should generate 'correct' code either
> way.
>
> If it doesn't inline, its a dumb compiler and it will make these dumb
> decisions throughout the tree and your kernel will be slow, not my
> problem really ;-)
>
> That said, I agree that the single line thing is actually easier to
> read.

Ok; I already made that change locally.


>
> That said; there's something to be said for:
>
> u64 running_bw;

Ok; I originally made it signed because I wanted the "running_bw < 0"
check, but I can change it to "dl_rq->running_bw > old" (I did not
think about it).

I'll make these changes locally ASAP.


Thanks,
Luca

>
> static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> dl_rq *dl_rq) {
> u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
>
> dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->dl_bw;
> SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw < old); /* overflow */
> }
>
> static void sub_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> dl_rq *dl_rq) {
> u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
>
> dl_rq->running_bw -= dl_se->dl_bw;
> SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > old); /* underflow */
> }
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-18 16:11    [W:0.095 / U:1.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site