On 07-03-17, 14:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why do you think so? I thought all CPU in the policy can have the RT/DL > > flag set > > and the probability of all of them is just the same. > > Well, yes, but if the current CPU has that flag set already, we surely > don't need to check the other ones in the policy?
That's true for every other CPU in policy too.. > >> So to the point, the code was written this way on purpose and not just > >> by accident as your changelog suggests and > > > > I didn't wanted to convey that really and I knew that it was written on > > purpose. > > > >> if you want to change it, you need numbers. > > > > What kind of numbers can we get for such a change ? I tried to take the > > running > > average of the time it takes to execute this routine over 10000 samples, > > but it > > varies a lot even with the same build. Any tests like hackbench, etc > > wouldn't be > > of any help as well. > > So why do you think it needs to be changed, but really? > > Is that because it is particularly hard to follow or similar? Just that I didn't like keeping the same code at two places (outside and inside the loop) and the benefit it has. Anyway, its not straight forward to get any numbers supporting my argument. I can claim improvement only theoretically by comparing the number of comparisons that we may end up doing for quad or octa core policies. Lets abandon this patch as I failed to convince you :) Thanks for applying the other two patches though. Cheers. -- viresh
