Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:51:55 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: check cpu_online() in nr_running() |
| |
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 16:33, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++) >> + if (!cpu_online(i)) >> + continue; >> sum += cpu_rq(i)->nr_running;
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 06:32:43PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > I smell donkey poo 8)
I don't really like how this stuff got arranged either.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 06:32:43PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > If the change is right, which seems reasonable then I think you > need some { } 's too. Its also a hot path so it may be a lot > cleaner to keep the jump out of this by just letting > nr_running be zero for other processors ?
AFAICT its only usages are in /proc/ reporting and loadavg calculation, which aren't hotpaths per-se, but shouldn't explode in complexity. Similar things could be said for nr_uninterruptible() and nr_iowait(), but some kind of unusual constraint is involved wrt. hotplug.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |