[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA7rmPGcnXhPUWLWCUS7spy3Grv=aE1Mng=DfD=XM7-GNDyX_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:51:22 +0200
From: Daniel Vacek <neelx.g@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, cfriesen@...tel.com,
oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
raistlin@...ux.it
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] sched: add latency tracing for -deadline tasks.
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 23:03, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * Semantic is like this:
>> + * - wakeup tracer handles all tasks in the system, independently
>> + * from their scheduling class;
>> + * - wakeup_rt tracer handles tasks belonging to sched_dl and
>> + * sched_rt class;
>> + * - wakeup_dl handles tasks belonging to sched_dl class only.
>> + */
>> + if ((wakeup_dl && !dl_task(p)) ||
>> + (wakeup_rt && !dl_task(p) && !rt_task(p)) ||
>> + (p->prio >= wakeup_prio || p->prio >= current->prio))
>> return;
>
> Anyway, perhaps this should be broken up, as we don't want the double
> test, that is, wakeup_rt and wakeup_dl are both checked. Perhaps do:
>
> if (wakeup_dl && !dl_task(p))
> return;
> else if (wakeup_rt && !dl_task(p) && !rt_task(p))
> return;
>
> if (p->prio >= wakeup_prio || p->prio >= current->prio)
> return;
>
>
> -- Steve
sorry for the question, I'm obviously missing something here but what
is the logic behind this rewrite? In both cases my gcc generates the
same code for me.
nX
--
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