On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 09:23:37AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Don't bother with the whole pending tickless cpu load machinery if
> > we run a tick periodic kernel. That's less job for the CPU on ticks.
>
> Again, the changelog really could use help. Is this a pure optimization
> patch? If so, do you have numbers?
Well until now we have always tried to keep the nohz code under ifdef.
For optimizations and kernel size. I haven't measured it though, I guess
the gain is hardly visible.
>
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > @@ -585,8 +585,10 @@ struct rq {
> > #endif
> > #define CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX 5
> > unsigned long cpu_load[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX];
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> > +# ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
> I'm not a fan of this #ifdef indenting and nothing near there uses this
> style, so please don't introduce it here.
Ok.
Thanks.
>
> > unsigned long last_load_update_tick;
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> > +# endif
> > u64 nohz_stamp;
> > unsigned long nohz_flags;
> > #endif
> > --
> > 2.7.0
> >
