[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHaV1CGkbUgbp2ek@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:12:20 +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,
bristot@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] sched/fair:Reduce unnecessary check preempt in
the sched tick
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:22:29AM +0800, qianjun.kernel@...il.com wrote:
> From: jun qian <qianjun.kernel@...il.com>
>
> As you are already set the TIF_NEED_RESCHED, there is no need
> to check resched again.
Still no justification; does this actually help anything?
> Signed-off-by: jun qian <qianjun.kernel@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 +++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 794c2cb945f8..1a69b5fffe4a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4360,19 +4360,26 @@ 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;
>
> ideal_runtime = sched_slice(cfs_rq, curr);
> delta_exec = curr->sum_exec_runtime - curr->prev_sum_exec_runtime;
> if (delta_exec > ideal_runtime) {
> - resched_curr(rq_of(cfs_rq));
> + if (!test_tsk_need_resched(rq->curr))
> + resched_curr(rq_of(cfs_rq));
> /*
> * The current task ran long enough, ensure it doesn't get
> * re-elected due to buddy favours.
> */
> clear_buddies(cfs_rq, curr);
> return;
> - }
> + /*
> + * If here with TIF_NEED_RESCHED already set from the early entity_tick,
> + * there is no need to check again.
> + */
> + } else if (test_tsk_need_resched(rq->curr))
> + return;
This is horrific style. And, afaict, completely unnecessary.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists