[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231003103639.GD1539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 12:36:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
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, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/rt: move back to RT_GROUP_SCHED and rename it
child
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 01:03:17PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> @@ -564,6 +566,9 @@ static inline struct task_group *next_task_group(struct task_group *tg)
> #define for_each_sched_rt_entity(rt_se) \
> for (; rt_se; rt_se = rt_se->parent)
>
> +#define for_each_sched_rt_entity_reverse(rt_se) \
> + for (; rt_se; rt_se = rt_se->child)
> +
> static inline struct rt_rq *group_rt_rq(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se)
> {
> return rt_se->my_q;
> @@ -669,6 +674,9 @@ typedef struct rt_rq *rt_rq_iter_t;
> #define for_each_sched_rt_entity(rt_se) \
> for (; rt_se; rt_se = NULL)
>
> +#define for_each_sched_rt_entity_reverse(rt_se) \
> + for_each_sched_rt_entity(rt_se)
> +
> static inline struct rt_rq *group_rt_rq(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se)
> {
> return NULL;
> @@ -1481,22 +1489,21 @@ static void __dequeue_rt_entity(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, unsigned int flag
> */
> static void dequeue_rt_stack(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se, unsigned int flags)
> {
> - struct sched_rt_entity *back = NULL;
> + struct sched_rt_entity *root;
> unsigned int rt_nr_running;
>
> - for_each_sched_rt_entity(rt_se) {
> - rt_se->back = back;
> - back = rt_se;
> - }
> + for_each_sched_rt_entity(rt_se)
> + root = rt_se;
>
> - rt_nr_running = rt_rq_of_se(back)->rt_nr_running;
> + rt_nr_running = rt_rq_of_se(root)->rt_nr_running;
>
> - for (rt_se = back; rt_se; rt_se = rt_se->back) {
> + rt_se = root;
> + for_each_sched_rt_entity_reverse(rt_se) {
> if (on_rt_rq(rt_se))
> __dequeue_rt_entity(rt_se, flags);
> }
>
> - dequeue_top_rt_rq(rt_rq_of_se(back), rt_nr_running);
> + dequeue_top_rt_rq(rt_rq_of_se(root), rt_nr_running);
> }
Urgh, please don't do this. The whole thing is super fragile. Creating
these abstractions makes it appear like
for_each_sched_rt_entity_reverse() is somehow a sane thing to do. Aside
from the name being insanely long, the whole thing makes no sense
what-so-ever unless you first went and did the normal iteration and set
the back pointers.
It's called back for a reason, it walks back the path it first walked.
Normals and unambiguous iteration is up the tree, towards the root,
walking back down is not.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists