[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93aa2ee6-3ee4-0129-7160-d3684ba67f56@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:55:50 +0800
From: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, 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 2023/10/3 17:51, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev> wrote:
>
>> The member back in struct sched_rt_entity only related to RT_GROUP_SCHED,
>> it should not place out of RT_GROUP_SCHED, move back to RT_GROUP_SCHED
>> and rename it child.
>>
>> Init child when parent isn't NULL in init_tg_rt_entry().
>>
>> Introduce for_each_sched_rt_entity_reverse() to iterate rt_se from
>> top to down.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202308031034.4369b15b-oliver.sang@intel.com
> Yeah, so I agree with these changes, but could you please split up this
> patch into 3 separate patches:
>
> sched/rt: Move sched_rt_entity::back to under the CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED block
> sched/rt: Rename sched_rt_entity::back to sched_rt_entity::child
> sched/rt: Introduce for_each_sched_rt_entity_reverse() & use it
Okay, This patch makes sense, it saves a few bytes. But Peter seems to
have a different opinion.
@Peter, I think I split up this patch into 2 separate patches:
sched/rt: Introduce for_each_sched_rt_entity_back() & use it
sched/rt: Move sched_rt_entity::back to under the
CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED block
Comments, please...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists