On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> +void sched_set_itmt_support(bool itmt_supported)
> +{
> + mutex_lock(&itmt_update_mutex);
> +
> + if (itmt_supported != sched_itmt_capable)
> + sched_itmt_capable = itmt_supported;
Yikes. What is this conditional for? The only value it has is to confuse
the reader.
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&itmt_update_mutex);
> +}
> +
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, sched_core_priority);
Darn. Do not stick variable definitiions in the middle of the code and
especially not glued to the function w/o a newline in between. Move it to
the top of the file.
> +int arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu)
> +{
> + return per_cpu(sched_core_priority, cpu);
> +}
> +void sched_set_itmt_core_prio(int prio, int core_cpu)
> +{
> + int cpu, i = 1;
> +
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, topology_sibling_cpumask(core_cpu)) {
> + int smt_prio;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that the siblings are moved to the end
> + * of the priority chain and only used when
> + * all other high priority cpus are out of capacity.
> + */
> + smt_prio = prio * smp_num_siblings / i;
> + i++;
Your code ordering is really random. What has this i++ to do with the
store? Nothing. It just makes reading the code harder. Just move it below
the store.
> + per_cpu(sched_core_priority, cpu) = smt_prio;
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
