[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDCSQg_Nwh5osRVL0TEzvNZjrUmg_KsVmJySjV_XnOHzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2023 09:23:46 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@...sion.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
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>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stone.xulei@...sion.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: merge same code in enqueue_task_fair
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 08:04, Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@...sion.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 04:23:52PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 at 10:22, WangJinchao <wangjinchao@...sion.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. The code below is duplicated in two for loops and need to be
> > > consolidated
> > > 2. Fix the bug where a se's on_rq is true but its parent is not
> >
> > Could you clarify which bug you want to fix ?
> Taking into account the additional information provided by Tim,
> this is not a bug. Therefore, this patch is merely a logical
> simplification.
If there is no bug why changing it ?
The duplication is done in order to have the same pattern in :
enqueue_task_fair
dequeue_task_fair
throttle_cfs_rq
unthrottle_cfs_rq
so there is no need to change it
>
> I will send out a v2 and update the description in it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists