Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] sched/fair: Tweak misfit-related capacity checks
In-Reply-To: <20210203151515.4uphnp2lbch57v6y@e107158-lin>
References: <20210128183141.28097-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com> <20210128183141.28097-4-valentin.schneider@arm.com> <20210203151515.4uphnp2lbch57v6y@e107158-lin>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/26.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date:   Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:42:59 +0000
Message-ID: <jhjmtwl2dsc.mognet@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 03/02/21 15:15, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 01/28/21 18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> @@ -113,6 +113,13 @@ int __weak arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu)
>>   */
>>  #define fits_capacity(cap, max)	((cap) * 1280 < (max) * 1024)
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * The margin used when comparing CPU capacities.
>> + * is 'cap' noticeably greater than 'ref'
>> + *
>> + * (default: ~5%)
>> + */
>> +#define capacity_greater(cap, ref) ((ref) * 1078 < (cap) * 1024)
>
> nit: can we use cap1 and cap2 and make the implementation use '>' instead of
> '<'? ie:
>
> 	#define capacity_greater(cap1, cap2) ((cap1) * 1024 > (cap2) * 1078)
>
> this is more intuitive to read IMHO. Especially few lines below we have
>
> 	return capacity_greater(ref->sgc->max_capacity, sg->sgc->max_capacity);
>
> which pass 'ref->...' as cap which can be confusing when looking at the
> function signature @ref.
>

Unfortunate naming indeed... And I suppose it can't hurt to follow the
argument "declaration" order.