The patch titled
Subject: lib/flex_proportions.c: cleanup __fprop_inc_percpu_max
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
lib-flex_proportionsc-cleanup-__fprop_inc_percpu_max.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
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);
}
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from tan.hu@xxxxxxxxxx are
