[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180706113208.GS2458@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:32:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
pkondeti@...eaurora.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
edubezval@...il.com, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
currojerez@...eup.net, javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 08/12] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point
indicator
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:40:39PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> @@ -5384,6 +5402,7 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> {
> struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
> struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
> + int task_new = !(flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
>
> /*
> * The code below (indirectly) updates schedutil which looks at
> @@ -5431,8 +5450,12 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> update_cfs_group(se);
> }
>
> - if (!se)
> + if (!se) {
> add_nr_running(rq, 1);
> + if (!task_new)
> + update_overutilized_status(rq);
I'm confused... why only for !ENQUEUE_WAKEUP and why use a local
variable for something that's used only once?
> + }
>
> hrtick_update(rq);
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists