Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:24:44 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Introduce fits_capacity() |
| |
On 04-06-19, 08:59, Peter Oskolkov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:02 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > The same formula to check utilization against capacity (after > > considering capacity_margin) is already used at 5 different locations. > > > > This patch creates a new macro, fits_capacity(), which can be used from > > all these locations without exposing the details of it and hence > > simplify code. > > > > All the 5 code locations are updated as well to use it.. > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > --- > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 +++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index 7f8d477f90fe..db3a218b7928 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -102,6 +102,8 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu) > > * (default: ~20%) > > */ > > static unsigned int capacity_margin = 1280; > > + > > +#define fits_capacity(cap, max) ((cap) * capacity_margin < (max) * 1024) > > Any reason to have this as a macro and not as an inline function?
I don't have any strong preference here, I used a macro as I didn't feel that type-checking is really required on the parameters and eventually this will get open coded anyway.
Though I would be fine to make it a routine if maintainers want it that way.
Thanks Peter.
-- viresh
| |