On Wednesday 15 March 2006 09:09, Peter Williams wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Peter Williams writes:
> >> Con Kolivas wrote:
> >>> +unsigned long weighted_cpuload(const int cpu)
> >>> +{
> >>> + return (cpu_rq(cpu)->raw_weighted_load);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Wouldn't this be a candidate for inlining?
> >
> > That would make it unsuitable for exporting via sched.h.
>
> If above_background_load() were implemented inside sched.c instead of in
> sched.h there would be no need to export weighted_cpuload() would there?
> This would allow weighted_cpuload() to be inline and the efficiency
> would be better as above_background_load() doesn't gain a lot by being
> inline
I don't care about above_background_load() being inline; that's done because
all functions in header files need to be static inline to not become a mess.
> as having weighted_cpulpad() non inline means that it's doing a
> function call several times in a loop i.e. it may save one function call
> by being inline but requires (up to) one function call for every CPU.
I haven't checked but gcc may well inline weighted_cpuload anyway? We're
moving away from inlining most things manually since the compiler is doing it
well these days.
> The other way around the cost would be just one function call.
The way you're suggesting adds a function that is never used by anything but
swap prefetch which would then need to be 'ifdef'ed out to not be needlessly
built on every system. Adding ifdefs is frowned upon already, and to have an
mm/ specific ifdef in sched.c would be rather ugly.
Cheers,
Con
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
