From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932680AbcIPKvv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 16 Sep 2016 06:51:51 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:54594 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1765103AbcIPKvo (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 16 Sep 2016 06:51:44 -0400
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:51:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yuyang.du@intel.com,
        Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, pjt@google.com, bsegall@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7 v3] sched: fix wrong utilization accounting when
 switching to fair class
Message-ID: <20160916105135.GM5012@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1473666472-13749-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1473666472-13749-8-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1473666472-13749-8-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:47:52AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> -dequeue task
> -put task
> -change the property
> -enqueue task
> -set task as current task

> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 3e52d08..7a9c9b9 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1105,10 +1105,10 @@ void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask)
>  
>  	p->sched_class->set_cpus_allowed(p, new_mask);
>  
> -	if (running)
> -		p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
>  	if (queued)
>  		enqueue_task(rq, p, ENQUEUE_RESTORE);
> +	if (running)
> +		p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
>  }
>  
>  /*

So one thing that I've wanted to do for a while, but never managed to
come up with a sensible way to do is encapsulate this pattern.

The two options I came up with are:

#define FOO(p, stmt)
({
	struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
	bool queued = task_on_rq_queued(p);
	bool running = task_current(rq);
	int queue_flags = DEQUEUE_SAVE; /* also ENQUEUE_RESTORE */

	if (queued)
		dequeue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
	if (running)
		put_prev_task(rq, p);

	stmt;

	if (queued)
		enqueue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
	if (running)
		set_curr_task(rq, p);
})

and

void foo(struct task_struct *p, void (*func)(struct task_struct *, int *))
{
	struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
	bool queued = task_on_rq_queued(p);
	bool running = task_current(rq);
	int queue_flags = DEQUEUE_SAVE; /* also ENQUEUE_RESTORE */

	if (queued)
		dequeue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
	if (running)
		put_prev_task(rq, p);

	func(p, &queue_flags);

	if (queued)
		enqueue_task(rq, p, queue_flags);
	if (running)
		set_curr_task(rq, p);
}

Neither results in particularly pretty code. Although I suppose if I'd
have to pick one I'd go for the macro variant.

Opinions? I'm fine with leaving the code as is, just wanted to throw
this out there.