From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Cleanup clearing of BDI_pending bit in bdi_forker_thread()
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:06:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110905100612.GB5466@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110904041305.GA25981@localhost>
On Sun 04-09-11 12:13:05, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 11:04:42AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 06:54:18AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > bdi_forker_thread() clears BDI_pending bit at the end of the main loop.
> > > However clearing of this bit must not be done in some cases which is handled by
> > > calling 'continue' from switch statement. That's kind of unusual construct and
> > > without a good reason so change the function into more intuitive code flow.
> > >
> > > CC: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> >
> > It's pure code refactor.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
>
> But I do suspect it will slightly increase the code size.
> What do you think?
I haven't checked, maybe it will if the compiler is not clever enough to
merge two occurences of the function which is going to be inlined. But the
overhead will be really small and the code is not really performance critical
so I think clarity has priority.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-05 10:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-02 22:54 [PATCH 0/2 v3] Small cleanup of bdi_forker_thread() Jan Kara
2011-09-02 22:54 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: Cleanup clearing of BDI_pending bit in bdi_forker_thread() Jan Kara
2011-09-04 3:04 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-09-04 4:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-09-05 10:06 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2011-09-05 12:50 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-09-02 22:54 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: Add comment explaining task state setting " Jan Kara
2011-09-04 3:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-09-05 10:01 ` Jan Kara
2011-09-05 12:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-09-05 15:53 ` Jan Kara
2011-09-07 22:19 ` Andrew Morton
2011-09-08 0:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-09-02 23:07 ` [PATCH 0/2 v3] Small cleanup of bdi_forker_thread() Jens Axboe
2011-09-02 23:12 ` Jan Kara
2011-09-02 23:16 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110905100612.GB5466@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®