[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160606191552.GE8105@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 03:15:52 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bsegall@...gle.com, pjt@...gle.com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] sched/fair: Skip detach sched avgs for new task
when changing task groups
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:03:38PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > -static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct *p)
> > +static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct *p, bool fork)
> > {
> > - detach_task_cfs_rq(p);
> > + /*
> > + * Newly forked task should not be removed from any cfs_rq
> > + */
> > + if (!fork)
> > + detach_task_cfs_rq(p);
> > set_task_rq(p, task_cpu(p));
> > attach_task_cfs_rq(p);
> > /*
>
> Wouldn't it be more symmetric to add,
>
> if (p->se.avg.last_update_time)
> __update_load_avg(...)
>
> to detach_entity_load_avg() so that there's no need to pass the @fork
> parameter all the way down the stack
Up to this point, we can't. But we should be able to if we move the next
patch (4/5) before this patch. I should have changed my mindset with that
patch. Good advice though, thanks, Matt.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists