Re: diff: nuke a redundant check for cpu_unidle() (i386)

[Thomas de Grivel]

First: double checking is far from bad,
second: a test is much faster than a function call.

On 09/28/10 13:40, Vladimir Kirillov wrote:

Hello, t...@!

Subj, cpu_unidle() does that check itself.

Index: i386/machdep.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/machdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.481
diff -u -p -r1.481 machdep.c
--- i386/machdep.c  5 Aug 2010 21:10:09 -   1.481
+++ i386/machdep.c  28 Sep 2010 11:39:14 -
@@ -3303,8 +3303,7 @@ need_resched(struct cpu_info *ci)
/* There's a risk we'll be called before the idle threads start */
if (ci->ci_curproc) {
aston(ci->ci_curproc);
-   if (ci != curcpu())
-   cpu_unidle(ci);
+   cpu_unidle(ci);
}
  }

diff: nuke a redundant check for cpu_unidle() (i386)

[Vladimir Kirillov]

Hello, t...@!

Subj, cpu_unidle() does that check itself.

Index: i386/machdep.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/arch/i386/i386/machdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.481
diff -u -p -r1.481 machdep.c
--- i386/machdep.c  5 Aug 2010 21:10:09 -   1.481
+++ i386/machdep.c  28 Sep 2010 11:39:14 -
@@ -3303,8 +3303,7 @@ need_resched(struct cpu_info *ci)
/* There's a risk we'll be called before the idle threads start */
if (ci->ci_curproc) {
aston(ci->ci_curproc);
-   if (ci != curcpu())
-   cpu_unidle(ci);
+   cpu_unidle(ci);
}
 }