From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755281AbcDKNSc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:18:32 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:35559 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754893AbcDKNSa (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:18:30 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 15:18:16 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Optimize !CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON cpu load updates
Message-ID: <20160411131814.GA22628@lerouge>
References: <1460077633-23431-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1460077633-23431-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20160408104821.GM3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160408125521.GC24956@lerouge>
 <20160408174414.GE1087@worktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160408174414.GE1087@worktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 07:44:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 02:55:22PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > @@ -4540,17 +4568,8 @@ static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> > > >  
> > > >  		/* scale is effectively 1 << i now, and >> i divides by scale */
> > > >  
> > > > -		old_load = this_rq->cpu_load[i];
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> > > > -		old_load = decay_load_missed(old_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
> > > > -		if (tickless_load) {
> > > > -			old_load -= decay_load_missed(tickless_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
> > > > -			/*
> > > > -			 * old_load can never be a negative value because a
> > > > -			 * decayed tickless_load cannot be greater than the
> > > > -			 * original tickless_load.
> > > > -			 */
> > > > -			old_load += tickless_load;
> > > > -		}
> > > #endif
> > 
> > Ah sure, if you prefer it that way, I can do that.
> 
> Yes please. I normally favour the thing you did, but here it makes
> tricky code that much harder to read.

So I tried and it warns about the unused variable tickless_load, so I
would need two scattered ifdeffery in the function:

@@ -4528,7 +4529,9 @@ decay_load_missed(unsigned long load, unsigned long missed_updates, int idx)
 static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
 			    unsigned long pending_updates)
 {
+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
 	unsigned long tickless_load = this_rq->cpu_load[0];
+#endif
 	int i, scale;
 
 	this_rq->nr_load_updates++;
@@ -4541,6 +4544,7 @@ static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
 		/* scale is effectively 1 << i now, and >> i divides by scale */
 
 		old_load = this_rq->cpu_load[i];
+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
 		old_load = decay_load_missed(old_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
 		if (tickless_load) {
 			old_load -= decay_load_missed(tickless_load, pending_updates - 1, i);
@@ -4551,6 +4555,7 @@ static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
 			 */
 			old_load += tickless_load;
 		}
+#endif
 		new_load = this_load;
 		/*
 		 * Round up the averaging division if load is increasing. This


Are you still sure you don't want the ifdeffed inline function?

Thanks.