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;
Date:   Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:05:48 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com>,
        Alexey Klimov <aklimov@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 47/54] sched: replace cpumask_weight with
 cpumask_weight_eq where appropriate
Message-ID: <20220124080548.GJ20638@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220123183925.1052919-1-yury.norov@gmail.com>
 <20220123183925.1052919-48-yury.norov@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220123183925.1052919-48-yury.norov@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jan 23, 2022 at 10:39:18AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> kernel/sched code uses cpumask_weight() to compare the weight of
> cpumask with a given number. We can do it more efficiently with
> cpumask_weight_eq because conditional cpumask_weight may stop
> traversing the cpumask earlier, as soon as condition is met.
> 

Same as with the other patch, you're just making the code more difficult
to read for no reason.