[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150812090807.GA29326@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 10:08:08 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
yuyang.du@...el.com, mturquette@...libre.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>, sgurrappadi@...dia.com,
pang.xunlei@....com.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 11/46] sched: Remove blocked load and utilization
contributions of dying tasks
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 07:23:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:58:48PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:39:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > You add extra code the hot dequeue path for something that 'never'
> > > happens. We have the sched_class::task_dead call for that.
> >
> > I don't mind using sched_class::task_dead() instead. The reason why I
> > didn't go that way is that we have to retake the rq->lock or mess with
> > cfs_rq::removed_load instead of just not adding the utilization in
> > the first place when we have the rq->lock.
> >
> > Anyway, it is probably redundant by now. I will check Yuyang's code to
> > see if he already fixed this problem.
>
> He did, he used the removed_load stuff, same as migration does.
Nice. One less patch to worry about :)
--
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