[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081031134606.GA12193@sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:46:06 -0500
From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
To: Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] small optimization to update_curr_rt
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:10:13AM -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
> > A very minor improvement, but might it be better to check sched_rt_runtime(rt_rq)
> > before taking the rt_runtime_lock?
>
> Is it possible that the attribute sched_rt_runtime is checking could
> change by the time it acquires the lock? If not, should be fine, I
> think.
>
Steve,
While it might be possible for it to change in that instant, I don't know if it matters.
If the runtime value should change to RUNTIME_INF in that instant, it will be caught in sched_rt_runtime_exceeded(). If it changed from RUNTIME_INF to a lower value, I doubt it would matter much, as at most one more rt_rq value wouldn't be checked. Either way some rt_rq values would have been checked during the loop and some would not.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists