On 26 March 2014 22:58, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Instead of removing it we should actually use ffs and avoid the whole
> looping. That was the intention in the first place, but I never wrote
> the patch...
I thought about that and then using ffs for a field of which only 4 bits
are useful didn't
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Active_bases field of struct hrtimer_cpu_base is used at only one place, i.e.
> hrtimer_interrupt() and at that place too we can easily use
> timerqueue_getnext()
> instead to achieve the same result. I don't think this will have any
> performance
> d
Active_bases field of struct hrtimer_cpu_base is used at only one place, i.e.
hrtimer_interrupt() and at that place too we can easily use timerqueue_getnext()
instead to achieve the same result. I don't think this will have any performance
degradation issues and so removing this field.
Signed-off-
3 matches
Mail list logo
