On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:53:32PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> writes: > > > > Since recalculating the next_expiry isn't a free operation, especially > > when we must climb up the last wheel level to find out that no timer > > has > > I'm climbing stairs or mountains :)
Arguably, climbing a wheel can be a never ending story :) > > > been enqueued at all, lets reuse the next expiry cache when it is > > known > > lets? Come on, the changelog is about facts not what we might do. Also since you applied the last patchset I have tried to quit using "we" in the changelog and use "the code" as a subject or even the passive form. But reading above, I did it again. Too many habits :)) > > > unsigned long clk; > > unsigned long next_expiry; > > + bool next_expiry_recalc; > > unsigned int cpu; > > bool is_idle; > > Care to stare at the output of > > pahole -C timer_base kernel/time/timer.o > > before and after? Ah right, I'll move the bool together. Thanks.
