On Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:50:29 -0400 Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:44:30PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > +static bool need_activate_page_drain(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + return pagevec_count(&per_cpu(activate_page_pvecs, cpu)) != 0;
> > > +}
> >
> > static int need_activate_page_drain(int cpu)
> > {
> > return pagevec_count(&per_cpu(activate_page_pvecs, cpu));
> > }
> >
> > would be shorter and faster. bool rather sucks that way. It's a
> > performance-vs-niceness thing. I guess one has to look at the call
> > frequency when deciding.
>
> "!= 0" can be dropped but I'm fairly sure the compiler would be able
> to figure out that the type conversion can be skipped. It's a trivial
> optimization.
The != 0 can surely be removed and that shouldn't make any difference
to generated code.
The compiler will always need to do the int-to-bool conversion and
that's overhead which is added by using bool.
It's possible that the compiler will optmise away the int-to-bool
conversion when inlining this function into a callsite. I don't know
whether the compiler _does_ do this and it will be version dependent.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>