From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9AA16B00A3 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:19:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/20] Simplify the check on whether cpusets are a factor or not From: Pekka Enberg In-Reply-To: <20090223113959.GC6740@csn.ul.ie> References: <1235344649-18265-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1235344649-18265-8-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1235380072.4645.0.camel@laptop> <1235380403.6216.16.camel@penberg-laptop> <20090223113959.GC6740@csn.ul.ie> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:19:54 +0200 Message-Id: <1235395194.6216.60.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Linux Memory Management List , Rik van Riel , KOSAKI Motohiro , Christoph Lameter , Johannes Weiner , Nick Piggin , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lin Ming , Zhang Yanmin List-ID: Hi Mel, On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 11:39 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > An #ifdef in a function is ugly all right. Here is a slightly > different > version based on your suggestion. Note the definition of number_of_cpusets > in the !CONFIG_CPUSETS case. I didn't call cpuset_zone_allowed_softwall() > for the preferred zone in case it wasn't in the cpuset for some reason and > we incorrectly disabled the cpuset check. > > ===== > Simplify the check on whether cpusets are a factor or not > > The check whether cpuset contraints need to be checked or not is complex > and often repeated. This patch makes the check in advance to the comparison > is simplier to compute. > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Looks good to me! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org