| Date | Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:34:09 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 10/24] tick/nohz: Move tick_nohz_full_mask declaration outside the #ifdef | From | Reinette Chatre <> |
| |
Hi James,
On 7/28/2023 9:42 AM, James Morse wrote: > tick_nohz_full_mask lists the CPUs that are nohz_full. This is only > needed when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is defined. tick_nohz_full_cpu() allows > a specific CPU to be tested against the mask, and evaluates to false > when CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is not defined. > > The resctrl code needs to pick a CPU to run some work on, a new helper > prefers housekeeping CPUs by examining the tick_nohz_full_mask. Hiding > the declaration behind #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL forces all the users to > be behind an ifdef too. > > Move the tick_nohz_full_mask declaration, this lets callers drop the > ifdef, and guard access to tick_nohz_full_mask with IS_ENABLED() or > something like tick_nohz_full_cpu(). > > The definition does not need to be moved as any callers should be > removed at compile time unless CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is defined. > > Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> > --- > include/linux/tick.h | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
This is outside of the resctrl area. What is the upstreaming plan for this patch?
Reinette
|