lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] sched/fair: Cleanup load_balance() condition
From
Date
Hi,

On 26/09/2018 16:12, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> The alignment of the condition is off, clean that up.
>
> Also, logical operators have lower precedence than bitwise/relational
> operators, so remove one layer of parentheses to make the condition a
> bit simpler to follow.
>
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 6bd142d..9cf93ba 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -8783,9 +8783,9 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
>
> out_one_pinned:
> /* tune up the balancing interval */
> - if (((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED) &&
> - sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> - (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
> + if ((env.flags & LBF_ALL_PINNED &&
> + sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
> + sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
> sd->balance_interval *= 2;
>
> ld_moved = 0;
>

Is there anything else that should be done for these two patches?

Thanks,
Valentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-30 11:29    [W:0.061 / U:1.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site