[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171213160537.uqa423dyt5wrpgll@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 17:05:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:10:16PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> + if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 0) {
> + util_est = cfs_rq->util_est_runnable;
> + util_est -= task_util_est(p);
> + if (util_est < 0)
> + util_est = 0;
> + cfs_rq->util_est_runnable = util_est;
> + } else {
I'm thinking that's an explicit load-store to avoid intermediate values
landing in cfs_rq->util_esp_runnable, right?
That would need READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE() I think, without that the
compiler is free to munge the lot together.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists