Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] sched_credit: Remove cpu argument to __runq_insert()

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 30.10.15 at 17:33, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 10:25 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> > > > On 30.10.15 at 16:09, <write.harmandeep@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/common/sched_credit.c
>> > +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit.c
>> > @@ -252,13 +252,12 @@ __runq_elem(struct list_head *elem)
>> >  }
>> >  
>> >  static inline void
>> > -__runq_insert(unsigned int cpu, struct csched_vcpu *svc)
>> > +__runq_insert(struct csched_vcpu *svc)
>> >  {
>> > -    const struct list_head * const runq = RUNQ(cpu);
>> > +    const struct list_head * const runq = RUNQ(svc->vcpu
>> > ->processor);
>> 
>> ... this being an inline function the change will likely make the
>> compiler produce worse code, if only ...
>> 
>> >      struct list_head *iter;
>> >  
>> >      BUG_ON( __vcpu_on_runq(svc) );
>> > -    BUG_ON( cpu != svc->vcpu->processor );
>> 
>> ... this was an ASSERT() instead of a BUG_ON() (which it looks like
>> it should be).
>> 
> Mmm... I'm sorry, but I'm not getting what you are actually suggesting.
> 
> Are you saying that we shouldn't make the change at all? Or that we
> should make the change and also turn the BUG_ON() (the one that is left
> in place) into an ASSERT()? Or that we should not mark the function as
> 'inline'?

No, I'm suggesting that instead of this change the BUG_ON() (or
perhaps both and also others) should be converted to ASSERT().

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel