On 26/01/17 01:00, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 03:30 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 18.01.17 at 11:21, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> On 18/01/17 00:30, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>>> index ef8e0d8..d086264 100644 >>>> --- a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c >>>> +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c >>>> @@ -985,7 +985,7 @@ runq_tickle(const struct scheduler *ops, >>>> struct csched2_vcpu *new, s_time_t now) >>>> cpumask_andnot(&mask, &rqd->active, &rqd->idle); >>>> cpumask_andnot(&mask, &mask, &rqd->tickled); >>>> cpumask_and(&mask, &mask, new->vcpu->cpu_hard_affinity); >>>> - if ( cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &mask) ) >>>> + if ( __cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(cpu, &mask) ) >>> >>> Since we're micro-optimizing -- isn't test-and-clear a locked >>> operation? >>> Would that be more expensive than the if() statement below? >> >> cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu() is, but __cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu() >> isn't. >> > George, ping?
Yes, this looks fine then. But it didn't apply cleanly when I tried to apply it -- please re-send it with the other patches you have outstanding. Thanks. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
