[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190208163045.GD32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:30:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Xie XiuQi <xiexiuqi@...wei.com>, xiezhipeng1@...wei.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: optimization of update_blocked_averages()
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 16:40, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Argh head hurts!!
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:14:21PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > @@ -4438,6 +4450,10 @@ static int tg_unthrottle_up(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
> > > /* adjust cfs_rq_clock_task() */
> > > cfs_rq->throttled_clock_task_time += rq_clock_task(rq) -
> > > cfs_rq->throttled_clock_task;
> > > +
> > > + /* Add cfs_rq with already running entity in the list */
> > > + if (cfs_rq->nr_running >= 1)
> > > + list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq);
> > > }
> > >
> > > return 0;
> >
> > Do we want the below to go with the above change?
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index 38d4669aa2ef..0bd80a891025 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4536,6 +4536,8 @@ void unthrottle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > /* update hierarchical throttle state */
> > walk_tg_tree_from(cfs_rq->tg, tg_nop, tg_unthrottle_up, (void *)rq);
> >
> > + assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> > +
>
> Good point but this should go after the for_each_sched_entity() loop
Indeed, but that loop does enqueue and can throttle again, should that
not also get that additinoal list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() loop we added to
enqueue_task_fair() to finish the add?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists