lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 22/38] tick-sched: no need to recheck cpu_online() in can_stop_idle_tick()
    On 04/14/14 09:23, Viresh Kumar wrote:
    > We have already checked if 'cpu' is online or not and so don't need to recheck
    > it.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

    Hm... doing some git archeology shows fa116ea35ec7 (nohz: no softirq
    pending warnings for offline cpus, 2008-12-11), where the cpu_online()
    check was added. Before that commit we already checked cpu_online()
    similar to how the code is today. Perhaps we need to add a comment here?

    > ---
    > kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 2 +-
    > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
    > index 9cbba513..c81b6cf 100644
    > --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
    > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
    > @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ static bool can_stop_idle_tick(int cpu, struct tick_sched *ts)
    > if (need_resched())
    > return false;
    >
    > - if (unlikely(local_softirq_pending() && cpu_online(cpu))) {
    > + if (unlikely(local_softirq_pending())) {
    > static int ratelimit;
    >
    > if (ratelimit < 10 &&


    --
    Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
    hosted by The Linux Foundation



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-04-14 22:41    [W:8.096 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site