Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/8] sched: introduce task_se_h_load helper | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Wed, 19 Jun 2019 17:18:15 +0200 |
| |
On 6/19/19 3:57 PM, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 2019-06-19 at 14:52 +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >>> @@ -7833,14 +7834,19 @@ static void update_cfs_rq_h_load(struct >>> cfs_rq *cfs_rq) >>> } >>> } >>> >>> -static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct *p) >>> +static unsigned long task_se_h_load(struct sched_entity *se) >>> { >>> - struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p); >>> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se); >>> >>> update_cfs_rq_h_load(cfs_rq); >>> - return div64_ul(p->se.avg.load_avg * cfs_rq->h_load, >>> + return div64_ul(se->avg.load_avg * cfs_rq->h_load, >>> cfs_rq_load_avg(cfs_rq) + 1); >>> } >> >> I wonder if this is necessary. I placed a BUG_ON(!entity_is_task(se)) >> into task_se_h_load() after I applied the whole patch-set and ran >> some >> taskgroup related testcases. It didn't hit. >> >> So why not use task_h_load(task_of(se)) instead? >> >> [...] > > That would work, but task_h_load then dereferences > task->se to get the se->avg.load_avg value. > > Going back to task from the se, only to then get the > se from the task seems a little unnecessary :) > > Can you explain why you think task_h_load(task_of(se)) > would be better? I think I may be overlooking something.
Ah, OK, I just wanted to avoid having task_se_h_load() and task_h_load() at the same time. You could replace the remaining calls to task_h_load(p) with task_se_h_load(&p->se) in this case.
- task_load = task_h_load(p); + task_load = task_se_h_load(&p->se);
Not that important though right now ...
| |