[patch 080/127] lib/flex_proportions.c: cleanup __fprop_inc_percpu_max

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Tan Hu <tan.hu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: lib/flex_proportions.c: cleanup __fprop_inc_percpu_max

If the given type has fraction smaller than max_frac/FPROP_FRAC_BASE, the
code could be modified to call __fprop_inc_percpu() directly and easier to
understand.  After this patch, fprop_reflect_period_percpu() will be
called twice, and quicky return on pl->period == p->period test, so it
would not result to significant downside of performance.

Thanks for Jan's guidance.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1589004753-27554-1-git-send-email-tan.hu@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Tan Hu <tan.hu@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <xue.zhihong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Yi Wang <wang.yi59@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <wang.liang82@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

 lib/flex_proportions.c |    7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/lib/flex_proportions.c~lib-flex_proportionsc-cleanup-__fprop_inc_percpu_max
+++ a/lib/flex_proportions.c
@@ -266,8 +266,7 @@ void __fprop_inc_percpu_max(struct fprop
 		if (numerator >
 		    (((u64)denominator) * max_frac) >> FPROP_FRAC_SHIFT)
 			return;
-	} else
-		fprop_reflect_period_percpu(p, pl);
-	percpu_counter_add_batch(&pl->events, 1, PROP_BATCH);
-	percpu_counter_add(&p->events, 1);
+	}
+
+	__fprop_inc_percpu(p, pl);
 }
_



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Archive]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux