[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABk29NucnFxyPQ==n8-v=_hti2THkybrEkxruqJ_v8rvW4yacg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:59:00 -0800
From: Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineethrp@...il.com>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@...ux.dev>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/core: forced idle accounting
On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:15 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 01:34:28PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> > @@ -5804,6 +5830,12 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > + if (rq->core->core_forceidle_count) {
>
> Does this want to be something like:
>
> if (schedstat_enabled() && .. ) ?
>
> afaict without schedstat on this is dead code.
>
Makes sense to me, and similarly we can bail out of sched_core_tick()
early in the disabled case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists