[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b56f1c06-b935-4018-adb9-3702d8ff57cd@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 12:14:41 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Paolo
Bonzini" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Wanpeng Li
<wanpengli@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] sched/fair: Add rate-limiting and validation
helpers
On 11/12/2025 12:10 PM, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
>> + if (task_rq(p_yielding) != rq || task_rq(p_target) != rq)
>
> yield_to() has already checked for this under double_rq_lock()
> so this too should be unnecessary.
nvm! We only check if the task_rq(p_target) is stable under the
rq_lock or not. Just checking "task_rq(p_target) != rq" should
be sufficient here.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists