Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:17:58 +0900 | From | Byungchul Park <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Remove unnecessary condition in push_dl_task() |
| |
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 02:45:03PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 15/02/17 09:25, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:47:49 +0000 > > Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > [+Steve, Luca] > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 15/02/17 14:11, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > Once pick_next_pushable_dl_task(rq) return a task, it guarantees that > > > > the task's cpu is rq->cpu, so task_cpu(next_task) is always rq->cpu if > > > > task == next_task. Remove a redundant condition and make code simpler. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> > > > > --- > > > > kernel/sched/deadline.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > > > > index 27737f3..ad8d577 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > > > > @@ -1483,7 +1483,7 @@ static int push_dl_task(struct rq *rq) > > > > * then possible that next_task has migrated. > > > > */ > > > > task = pick_next_pushable_dl_task(rq); > > > > - if (task_cpu(next_task) == rq->cpu && task == next_task) { > > > > + if (task == next_task) { > > > > > > Seems a sensible optimization to me. Actually, we are doing the same for > > > rt.c; Steve, Peter, do you think we should optimize that as well? > > > > > > > Are we doing the same for push_rt_task()? I don't see it, and I don't > > see it in tip/sched/core either. What I have is: > > > > if (task_cpu(next_task) == rq->cpu && task == next_task) { > > Sorry, bad wording on my side. I meant the are currently checking the > same conditions both for DL and for RT, and we should probably optimize > RT as well if we are going to take this patch. > > > > > But that said, I believe this patch is correct, and we should change > > rt.c as well. > > > > That's what I meant. :) > > > > > task = pick_next_pushable_dl_task(rq); > > > > Which has: > > > > BUG_ON(rq->cpu != task_cpu(task)) > > > > when it returns a task other than NULL. Which means that task_cpu(task) > > must be rq->cpu. Then if task == next_task, then task_cpu(next_task) > > must be rq->cpu as well. > > Right. > > > > > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > > > You can also add mine > > Reviewed-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Juri and steven, thank you very much for reviewing it.
I'm not sure and familiar with... Should I add your 'reviewed by' into my patches by myself?
> > > Mind fixing rt.c if it hasn't been fixed already. > > > > -- Steve
| |