[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190424204337.22283-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 20:43:36 +0000
From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks
> A minor nitpick. I find keeping the vruntime base readjustment in
> core_prio_less probably is more straight forward rather than pass a
> core_cmp bool around.
The reason I moved the vruntime base adjustment to __prio_less is
because, the vruntime seemed alien to __prio_less when looked as
a standalone function.
I do not have a strong opinion on both. Probably a better approach
would be to replace both cpu_prio_less/core_prio_less with prio_less
which takes the third arguement 'bool on_same_rq'?
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists