On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > I thought about that and when looking at those long timeout thingies > I came to the conclusion that it's simply not worth the trouble.
Okay. A comment might be nice, just to stop someone else wasting brain power on it. E.g. /* * If the timer happens to expire exactly now, this will cascade it to * vectors[0] which we just cleared and won't check again for 64 jiffies. * This is acceptable error on a timeout this long. */ >> to be replaced with __builtin_clz or similar: > > Except that __fls() is noticeably slower than the if chain. Fair enogh. I wasn't sure about the distribution; if it's biased low, then the if chain would win. > That's not new code. We kept the ordering, but yes, we definitely can turn > that around. The only restriction is that we get it before releasing the lock. Thanks!
