lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 6/7] sched: add SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE at MC and CPU level for sched_mc>0
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:57:38 +0530
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -782,6 +782,16 @@ enum powersavings_balance_level {
> ((sched_mc_power_savings || sched_smt_power_savings) ? \
> SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE : 0)

What's with all the crappy macros in here?

> +/*
> + * Optimise SD flags for power savings:
> + * SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE helps agressive task consolidation and power savings.
> + * Keep default SD flags if sched_{smt,mc}_power_saving=0
> + */
> +
> +#define POWERSAVING_SD_FLAGS \
> + ((sched_mc_power_savings || sched_smt_power_savings) ? \
> + SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE : 0)

This one purports to be a constant, but it isn't - it's code.

It would be cleaner, clearer and more idiomatic to do

static inline int powersaving_sd_flags(void)
{
...
}
Also, doing (sched_mc_power_savings | sched_smt_power_saving) might
save a branch.
> #define test_sd_parent(sd, flag) ((sd->parent && \
> (sd->parent->flags & flag)) ? 1 : 0)

buggy when passed an expression with side-effects. Doesn't need to be
implemented as a macro.


Sigh.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-18 02:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans