[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ffda0c9a-0794-4080-921f-99f0c31e2d6c@bytedance.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:29:29 +0800
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>, Tianchen Ding <dtcccc@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Fix premature check of
WAKEUP_PREEMPTION
On 2/24/25 9:47 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> Or we should just remove it. I'm curious to know who used it during
> the last couple of years ? Having in mind that lazy preemption adds
TBH I have never used this feature. But since Phil mentioned a case
in debugging DELAY_DEQUEUE, I think we'd better keep it, what do you
think?
> another level as check_preempt_wakeup_fair() uses it so sched-idle
> tasks might not always be immediately preempted anyway.
Right, thanks for mention that.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Abel
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists