Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:12:19 -0400 | From | Phil Auld <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: don't push cfs_bandwith slack timers forward |
| |
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:53:25PM +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:21:01AM -0700, bsegall@google.com wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h > > index efa686eeff26..60219acda94b 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h > > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h > > @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth { > > u64 throttled_time; > > > > bool distribute_running; > > + bool slack_started; > > #endif > > }; > > I'm thinking we can this instead? afaict both idle and period_active are > already effecitively booleans and don't need the full 16 bits. > > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h > @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth { > u64 runtime_expires; > int expires_seq; > > - short idle; > - short period_active; > + u8 idle; > + u8 period_active; > + u8 distribute_running; > + u8 slack_started; > struct hrtimer period_timer; > struct hrtimer slack_timer; > struct list_head throttled_cfs_rq; > @@ -348,9 +350,6 @@ struct cfs_bandwidth { > int nr_periods; > int nr_throttled; > u64 throttled_time; > - > - bool distribute_running; > - bool slack_started; > #endif > }; >
That looks reasonable to me.
Out of curiosity, why not bool? Is sizeof bool architecture dependent?
--
| |