Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 06:07:17PM +0800, yuankuiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ struct tick_sched {
> > > > > >         unsigned long                   check_clocks;
> > > > > >         enum tick_nohz_mode             nohz_mode;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +       bool                            tick_stopped    : 1;
> > > > > >         unsigned int                    inidle          : 1;
> > > > > > -       unsigned int                    tick_stopped    : 1;
> > > > > >         unsigned int                    idle_active     : 1;
> > > > > >         unsigned int                    do_timer_last   : 1;
> > > > > >         unsigned int                    got_idle_tick   : 1;
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think this is a good idea at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 for example.
> > > > [ZJ] Thanks for this sharing. Looks like, this patch fall into the
> > > > case of
> > > > "Maybe".
> > > 
> > > This patch falls into the case 'pointless' because it adds extra storage
> > [ZJ] 1 bit vs 1 bit. no more.
> 
> Since its a different type, the bitfields will not be merged. Also I'm
> surprised a bitfield with base-type _Bool is even allowed.
> 
> > > for no benefit at all.
> > [ZJ] tick_stopped is returned by the tick_nohz_tick_stopped() which is bool.
> > The benefit is no any potiential type conversion could be minded.
> 
> Do you have any actual evidence for that? Is there a compiler stupid
> enough to generate code to convert a bool to a 1bit value?

Sure, if you do:

> > > > > > +       bool                            tick_stopped    : 1;

which is stupidly allowed by the standard....