Hi Vincent,
Thanks for taking another look at this. On 15/03/21 15:18, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 13:05, Valentin Schneider > <valentin.schnei...@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Rik noted a while back that a handful of >> >> sd->flags & SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY >> >> & family in the CFS load-balancer code aren't guarded by the >> sched_asym_cpucapacity static branch. > > guarding asym capacity with static branch in fast path makes sense but > I see no benefit in this slow path but hiding and complexifying the > code. Also if you start with this way then you have to add a nop in > all other places where flag or a group_type might be unused. > OK, fair enough, I'll drop this one.
