On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:19:07PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> >> I'd argue making things easier to read is a non-negligible part as well. >> > >> > Right, so I don't object to either of these (I think); but it would be >> > good to see this in combination with that proposed EAS change. >> > >> >> True, I would've said the call to find_energy_efficient_cpu() ([1]) could >> simply be added to the if (sd) {} case, but... > > I think the proposal was to put it before the for_each_domain() loop > entirely, however... > >> > I think you (valentin) wanted to side-step the entire domain loop in >> > that case or something. >> > >> >> ...this would change more things. Admittedly I've been sort of out of the >> loop >> (no pun intended) lately, but this doesn't ring a bell. That might have been >> the other frenchie (Quentin) :) > > It does indeed appear I confused the two of you, it was Quentin playing > with that. > > In any case, if there not going to be conflicts here, this all looks > good.
Both Viresh's and Valentin's patch looks lovely to me too. I couldn't spot anything wrong with them either. One suggestion I was thinking off is can we add better comments to this code (atleast label fast path vs slow path) ? Also, annotate the conditions for the fast/slow path with likely/unlikely since fast path is the common case? so like: if (unlikely(sd)) { /* Fast path, common case */ ... } else if (...) { /* Slow path */ } thanks, - Joel