On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:41:40AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> +static inline struct uclamp_se
> +uclamp_eff_get(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> +{
> + struct uclamp_se uc_req = p->uclamp_req[clamp_id];
> + struct uclamp_se uc_max = uclamp_default[clamp_id];
> +
> + /* System default restrictions always apply */
> + if (unlikely(uc_req.value > uc_max.value))
> + return uc_max;
> +
> + return uc_req;
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned int
> +uclamp_eff_bucket_id(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> +{
> + struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> +
> + /* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) bucket */
> + if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> + return p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> +
> + uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> +
> + return uc_eff.bucket_id;
> +}
> +
> +unsigned int uclamp_eff_value(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> +{
> + struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> +
> + /* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) value */
> + if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> + return p->uclamp[clamp_id].value;
> +
> + uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> +
> + return uc_eff.value;
> +}
This is 'wrong' because:
uclamp_eff_value(p,id) := uclamp_eff(p,id).value
Which seems to suggest the uclamp_eff_*() functions want another name.
Also, suppose the above would be true; does GCC really generate better
code for the LHS compared to the RHS?
