[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190507141338.tnp62joujcrxyv5j@queper01-lin>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 15:13:40 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] sched/dl: Try better placement even for deadline
tasks that do not block
On Monday 06 May 2019 at 06:48:33 (+0200), Luca Abeni wrote:
> @@ -1591,6 +1626,7 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> curr = READ_ONCE(rq->curr); /* unlocked access */
> + het = static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity);
Nit: not sure how the generated code looks like but I wonder if this
could potentially make you loose the benefit of the static key ?
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists