Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:21:31 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: Optimize !CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON cpu load updates
Message-ID: <20160411182129.GB22628@lerouge>
References: <1460077633-23431-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1460077633-23431-4-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20160408104821.GM3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160408125521.GC24956@lerouge>
 <20160408174414.GE1087@worktop>
 <20160411131814.GA22628@lerouge>
 <570BBA4D.1060307@mellanox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <570BBA4D.1060307@mellanox.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1119
Lines: 26

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:53:01AM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 4/11/2016 9:18 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >So I tried and it warns about the unused variable tickless_load, so I
> >would need two scattered ifdeffery in the function:
> >
> >@@ -4528,7 +4529,9 @@ decay_load_missed(unsigned long load, unsigned long missed_updates, int idx)
> >  static void cpu_load_update(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> >  			    unsigned long pending_updates)
> >  {
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> >  	unsigned long tickless_load = this_rq->cpu_load[0];
> >+#endif
> 
> Just move the initialization down to the first use, as a regular
> assignment, and add __maybe_unused to the declaration, and the compiler
> will then keep quiet (see Documentation/CodingStyle).
> 
> I have no comment on which of the approaches looks better overall,
> but I think using __maybe_unused definitely improves this approach.

I thought about it yeah. I usually avoid __maybe_unused because it's often
a bad sign concerning the code layout.

Now in this precise case I wouldn't mind though. Peter what's your opinion?

Thanks.