Hi, nice clean-up. Maybe change the subject to something like "sched/deadline: refactor cpu heap code" ?
On 19/07/16 11:44, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: This change does two things: > 1. heapify up factored out in new dedicated function heapify_up() > (avoids repeatition of same code) s/repeatition/repetition/ > 2. call to cpudl_change_key() replaced with heapify_up() when > cpudl_set actually inserts a new node in the heap > Maybe we want a separate patch (we usually want 1 patch - 1 change) ? > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > Cc: Juri Lelli <[email protected]> > Cc: Luca Abeni <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Luca Abeni <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Tommaso Cucinotta <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++------------------- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c > index d418449..3c42702 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void cpudl_exchange(struct cpudl *cp, int a, int b) > swap(cp->elements[cpu_a].idx, cp->elements[cpu_b].idx); > } > > -static void cpudl_heapify(struct cpudl *cp, int idx) > +static void cpudl_heapify_down(struct cpudl *cp, int idx) > { > int l, r, largest; > > @@ -66,20 +66,25 @@ static void cpudl_heapify(struct cpudl *cp, int idx) > } > } > > +static void cpudl_heapify_up(struct cpudl *cp, int idx) > +{ > + while (idx > 0 && dl_time_before(cp->elements[parent(idx)].dl, > + cp->elements[idx].dl)) { > + cpudl_exchange(cp, idx, parent(idx)); > + idx = parent(idx); > + } > +} > + > static void cpudl_change_key(struct cpudl *cp, int idx, u64 new_dl) > { > WARN_ON(idx == IDX_INVALID || !cpu_present(idx)); > > if (dl_time_before(new_dl, cp->elements[idx].dl)) { > cp->elements[idx].dl = new_dl; > - cpudl_heapify(cp, idx); > + cpudl_heapify_down(cp, idx); > } else { > cp->elements[idx].dl = new_dl; > - while (idx > 0 && dl_time_before(cp->elements[parent(idx)].dl, > - cp->elements[idx].dl)) { > - cpudl_exchange(cp, idx, parent(idx)); > - idx = parent(idx); > - } > + cpudl_heapify_up(cp, idx); > } > } > > @@ -154,24 +159,19 @@ void cpudl_set(struct cpudl *cp, int cpu, u64 dl, int > is_valid) > cp->size--; > cp->elements[new_cpu].idx = old_idx; > cp->elements[cpu].idx = IDX_INVALID; > - while (old_idx > 0 && dl_time_before( > - cp->elements[parent(old_idx)].dl, > - cp->elements[old_idx].dl)) { > - cpudl_exchange(cp, old_idx, parent(old_idx)); > - old_idx = parent(old_idx); > - } > + cpudl_heapify_up(cp, old_idx); > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cp->free_cpus); > - cpudl_heapify(cp, old_idx); > + cpudl_heapify_down(cp, old_idx); I think this line was already whitespace damaged. Could you fix it (with a proper tab) in next version? > > goto out; > } > > if (old_idx == IDX_INVALID) { > - cp->size++; > - cp->elements[cp->size - 1].dl = dl; > - cp->elements[cp->size - 1].cpu = cpu; > - cp->elements[cpu].idx = cp->size - 1; > - cpudl_change_key(cp, cp->size - 1, dl); > + int size1 = cp->size++; s/size1/new_size/ ? > + cp->elements[size1].dl = dl; > + cp->elements[size1].cpu = cpu; > + cp->elements[cpu].idx = size1; > + cpudl_heapify_up(cp, size1); > cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cp->free_cpus); > } else { > cpudl_change_key(cp, old_idx, dl); We also seem to do almost the same ("cp->size - 1" mutliple times and then cp->size--) up above, !is_valid branch. Maybe we want to clean that up as well? Thanks, - Juri
