On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 06:42:10PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> +void tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency(enum tick_dependency_bit bit)
> +{
> + unsigned long prev;
> +
> + prev = __tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency(bit, &tick_dependency);
> + if (!prev)
> + tick_nohz_full_kick_all();
> +}
> +void tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency_cpu(enum tick_dependency_bit bit, int cpu)
> +{
> + unsigned long prev;
> + struct tick_sched *ts;
> +
> + ts = per_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched, cpu);
> +
> + prev = __tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency(bit, &ts->tick_dependency);
> + if (!prev)
> + tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(cpu);
> +}
> +/*
> + * Local dependency must have its own flavour due to NMI-safe requirement
> + * on perf.
> + */
That doesn't make any sense:
tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency_this_cpu();
(shees, you're nowhere near lazy enough, that's insane to type) is
almost identical to:
tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency_cpu(.cpu = smp_processor_id());
The only difference is a _very_ slight reduction in cost for computing
the per-cpu offset.
> +void tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency_this_cpu(enum tick_dependency_bit bit)
> +{
> + unsigned long prev;
> + struct tick_sched *ts;
> +
> + ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched);
> +
> + prev = __tick_nohz_set_tick_dependency(bit, &ts->tick_dependency);
> + if (!prev)
> + tick_nohz_full_kick();
> +}
And on that naming; could we please shorten them, this is really
ridiculous, it has 'tick' in it twice.
What's wrong with:
tick_nohz_set_dep()
tick_nohz_set_dep_cpu()
And just kill the this_cpu() version.
--
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/
