[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHWpknBamqQz2rpJ@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:24:18 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: qianjun.kernel@...il.com
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/fair:Reduce unnecessary check preempt in the
sched tick
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:18:42PM +0800, qianjun.kernel@...il.com wrote:
> From: jun qian <qianjun.kernel@...il.com>
>
> If it has been determined that the current cpu need resched in the
> early stage of for_each_sched_entity, then there is no need to check
> preempt in the subsequent se->parent entity_tick.
Right, but does it actually do anything, except increase linecount?
> Signed-off-by: jun qian <qianjun.kernel@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 1a68a0536add..c0d135100d54 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4352,8 +4352,13 @@ check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
> {
> unsigned long ideal_runtime, delta_exec;
> struct sched_entity *se;
> + struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
> s64 delta;
>
> + /* If the TIF_NEED_RESCHED has been set, it is no need to check again */
> + if (test_tsk_need_resched(rq->curr))
> + return;
> +
> ideal_runtime = sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr);
> delta_exec = curr->sum_exec_runtime - curr->prev_sum_exec_runtime;
> if (delta_exec > ideal_runtime) {
Also, I think that's placed wrong; this way we can mis clear_buddies().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists