Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752161AbdGDKBf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:01:35 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:35750 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751845AbdGDKBd (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 4 Jul 2017 06:01:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 12:01:29 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: fransklaver@gmail.com, hpa@zytor.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        wanpeng.li@hotmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        garsilva@embeddedor.com, sgruszka@redhat.com,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/cputime: Refactor the cputime_adjust()
 code
Message-ID: <20170704100129.5kkzn24awk3uzdtk@gmail.com>
References: <20170629184128.GA5271@embeddedgus>
 <tip-72298e5c92c50edd8cb7cfda4519483ce65fa166@git.kernel.org>
 <20170704091731.oux3ejxhgspgrlqb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170704091731.oux3ejxhgspgrlqb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1091
Lines: 52


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> Argh, no... That code was perfectly fine. The new code otoh is
> convoluted crap.
> 
> It had the form:
> 
> 	if (exception1)
> 	  deal with exception1
> 
> 	if (execption2)
> 	  deal with exception2
> 
> 	do normal stuff
> 
> Which is as simple and straight forward as it gets.
> 
> The new code otoh reads like:
> 
> 	if (!exception1) {
> 		if (exception2)
> 		  deal with exception 2
> 		else
> 		  do normal stuff
> 	}
> 
> which is absolute shit.
> 
> So NAK on this.

Agreed - I've queued up a revert.

Note that I fixed the old comment, which was arguably wrong:

	/*
	 * If either stime or both stime and utime are 0, assume all runtime is
	 * userspace. Once a task gets some ticks, the monotonicy code at
	 * 'update' will ensure things converge to the observed ratio.
	 */

The correct comment is something like:

	/*
	 * If either stime or utime are 0, assume all runtime is userspace.
	 * Once a task gets some ticks, the monotonicy code at 'update:'
	 * will ensure things converge to the observed ratio.
	 */

Thanks,

	Ingo