On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 09:15:03PM +0300, Lahti Oy wrote:
> - for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)
> + for (i = NR_CPUS; i; i--)
> sum += cpu_rq(i)->nr_running;
you change isn't equivalent : previously, we called cpu_rq() for
0..NR_CPUS-1, and now you call it for 1..NR_CPUS.
You should have written :
+ for (i = NR_CPUS - 1; i>=0; i--)
which might still be a win towards the former version.
But of course, this is only valid if i is SIGNED, and it isn't here.
Another valid form which would work with unsigned int is :
+ for (i = NR_CPUS; i--; )
but I'm not sure it will save some cycles because increments/decrements
within conditions are not always well optimizable.
Same comments for other locations.
Cheers,
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 31 2002 - 22:00:20 EST