[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180425101313.zwxg7gz2ybnvlvtn@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:43:13 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rearrange select_task_rq_fair() to optimize
it
On 25-04-18, 10:39, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 Apr 2018 at 14:33:27 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-04-18, 09:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > While you're at it, you could probably remove the one in wake_cap() ? I
> > > think having just one in select_task_rq_fair() should be enough.
> >
> > Just make it clear, you are asking me to remove sync_entity_load_avg()
> > in wake_cap() ? But aren't we required to do that, as in the very next
> > line we call task_util(p) ?
>
> Right, we do need to call sync_entity_load_avg() at some point before
> calling task_util(), but we don't need to re-call it in strf()
> after in this case. So my point was just that if you want to re-work
> the wake-up path and make sure we don't call sync_entity_load_avg()
> if not needed then this might need fixing as well ... Or maybe we don't
> care since re-calling sync_entity_load_avg() should be really cheap ...
These are in two very different paths and I am not sure of a clean way
to avoid calling sync_entity_load_avg() again. Maybe will leave it as
is for now.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists