[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240625135244.20227-3-frederic@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:52:40 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/6] sched/fair: Use task_work_queued() on numa_work
Remove the ad-hoc implementation of task_work_queued().
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 8a5b1ae0aa55..619ef8bd1486 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3213,7 +3213,6 @@ static void task_numa_work(struct callback_head *work)
SCHED_WARN_ON(p != container_of(work, struct task_struct, numa_work));
- work->next = work;
/*
* Who cares about NUMA placement when they're dying.
*
@@ -3456,7 +3455,6 @@ void init_numa_balancing(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *p)
p->numa_scan_period = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay;
p->numa_migrate_retry = 0;
/* Protect against double add, see task_tick_numa and task_numa_work */
- p->numa_work.next = &p->numa_work;
p->numa_faults = NULL;
p->numa_pages_migrated = 0;
p->total_numa_faults = 0;
@@ -3497,7 +3495,7 @@ static void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
/*
* We don't care about NUMA placement if we don't have memory.
*/
- if (!curr->mm || (curr->flags & (PF_EXITING | PF_KTHREAD)) || work->next != work)
+ if (!curr->mm || (curr->flags & (PF_EXITING | PF_KTHREAD)) || task_work_queued(work))
return;
/*
--
2.45.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists