On 15 April 2014 04:52, Frederic Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 09:53:51PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> __tick_nohz_task_switch() was called only from tick_nohz_task_switch() and >> there >> is nothing much in tick_nohz_task_switch() as well. IOW, we don't need >> unnecessary wrapper over __tick_nohz_task_switch() to be there. Merge all >> code >> from __tick_nohz_task_switch() into tick_nohz_task_switch() and move it to >> tick-sched.c. >> >> This also moves check for tick_nohz_tick_stopped() outside of irq_save() >> context. > > No, the wrapper is there on purpose in order to optimize the full dynticks > off case in > the context switch path with the jump label'ed check on > tick_nohz_full_enabled().
Just to clarify, you are saying that: Wrapper was there to save an extra function call when tick_nohz_full_enabled() returns false, as tick_nohz_task_switch() will be inlined ? In this case probably we can move !can_stop_full_tick() as well to the wrapper ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
