Re: [GIT PULL] scheduler fixes

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:45:34 -0700 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So I pulled this, but I think this:
> 
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > -               if (interval > HZ*NR_CPUS/10)
> > -                       interval = HZ*NR_CPUS/10;
> > +               if (interval > HZ*num_online_cpus()/10)
> > +                       interval = HZ*num_online_cpus()/10;
> 
> is a horrible patch.
> 
> Think about what that expands to. It's going to potentially be two
> function calls. And the code is just ugly.
> 
> So please, when doing search-and-replace changes like this, just clean
> up the code at the same time. Back when it was about pure constants,
> there was only a typing/ugly overhead from duplicating the constant,
> but the compiler would see a single constant.
> 
> Now it's _possible_ that the compiler could do the analysis and fold
> it all back to a single thing. But it's unlikely to happen except for
> configurations that end up making it all trivial.
> 
> So just add something like a
> 
>    int max_interval = HZ*num_online_cpus()/10;
> 
> possibly even with a comment about _why_ that is the max interval allowed.  Ok?
> 

max() conveniently avoids the double-evaluation:

#define max(x, y) ({				\
	typeof(x) _max1 = (x);			\
	typeof(y) _max2 = (y);			\
	(void) (&_max1 == &_max2);		\
	_max1 > _max2 ? _max1 : _max2; })

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/