[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZXrPTbXEyBlT+RgP@fedora>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:47:57 +0800
From: Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@...sion.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
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, Dec 13, 2023 at 09:23:46AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> 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 ?
For two reasons:
1. (from Abel Wu)
It doesn't need to, but it can actually bring some benefit from
the point of view of text size, especially in warehouse-scale
computers where icache is extremely contended.
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 0/-56 (-56)
Function old new delta
enqueue_task_fair 936 880 -56
Total: Before=64899, After=64843, chg -0.09%
2. For better code comprehension
I became curious when I reached this part, wondering why there is a lot of
repetition inside these two for-loops. Then I thought about 'do not repeat yourself,'
and I feel that merging them would lead to a clearer understanding. Of course,
it might be because I am just starting to read scheduler-related code and am not
yet familiar with the entire logic.
>
> The duplication is done in order to have the same pattern in :
> enqueue_task_fair
> dequeue_task_fair
> throttle_cfs_rq
> unthrottle_cfs_rq
Due to the two points mentioned above, do we need to adjust all four functions?
>
> so there is no need to change it
I plan to get familiar with the scheduler-related code first and then consider this.
Thanks
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists