[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240408091605.GE21904@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:16:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched/fair: Rename set_next_buddy() to
set_next_pick()
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 10:43:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> This is a mechanism to set the next task_pick target,
> 'buddy' is too ambiguous and refers to a historic feature we
> don't have anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 93ea653065f5..fe730f232ffd 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3200,7 +3200,16 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> hrtick_update(rq);
> }
>
> -static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se);
> +static void set_next_pick(struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> + for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> + if (SCHED_WARN_ON(!se->on_rq))
> + return;
> + if (se_is_idle(se))
> + return;
> + cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
> + }
> +}
>
> /*
> * The dequeue_task method is called before nr_running is
> @@ -3240,7 +3249,7 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> * p is sleeping when it is within its sched_slice.
> */
> if (task_sleep && se && !throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq))
> - set_next_buddy(se);
> + set_next_pick(se);
> break;
> }
> flags |= DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
> @@ -4631,17 +4640,6 @@ balance_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> static inline void set_task_max_allowed_capacity(struct task_struct *p) {}
> #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> -static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se)
> -{
> - for_each_sched_entity(se) {
> - if (SCHED_WARN_ON(!se->on_rq))
> - return;
> - if (se_is_idle(se))
> - return;
> - cfs_rq_of(se)->next = se;
> - }
> -}
> -
Hurmmm.. afaict the only actual user of cfs_rq->next left is task_hot(),
no? Is that thing worth it?
That is, should we not totally nuke the thing?
> /*
> * Preempt the current task with a newly woken task if needed:
> */
> @@ -4769,7 +4767,7 @@ pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf
> goto simple;
>
> /*
> - * Because of the set_next_buddy() in dequeue_task_fair() it is rather
> + * Because of the set_next_pick() in dequeue_task_fair() it is rather
> * likely that a next task is from the same cgroup as the current.
> *
So, given you killed the ->next consideration in pick, isn't this
comment 'misleading' at best?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists