From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
qais.yousef@arm.com, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched: Optimize pick_next_task()
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 21:46:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191108204642.GK3079@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191108143348.GB123156@google.com>
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 02:33:48PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Friday 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:57 (+0100), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also remove the unlikely() from the idle case, it is in fact /the/ way
> > we select idle -- and that is a very common thing to do.
>
> I assumed this was to optimize the case where we did find a cfs task to
> run. That is, we can afford to hit the unlikely case when there is no
> work to do after, but when there is, we shouldn't spend time checking
> the idle case. Makes sense ?
There is that, but it is also the way we pick idle when nr_running drops
to 0.
I just couldn't make up my mind if the unlikely made sense or not.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-08 20:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-08 13:15 [PATCH 0/7] scheduler patches Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 1/7] sched: Fix pick_next_task() vs change pattern race Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 14:28 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-08 16:05 ` Valentin Schneider
2019-11-08 20:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 17:03 ` Qais Yousef
2019-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 2/7] sched/fair: Better document newidle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-11 9:32 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 3/7] sched: Make pick_next_task_idle() more consistent Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-11 9:32 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/core: " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 4/7] sched: Optimize pick_next_task() Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 14:33 ` Quentin Perret
2019-11-08 16:46 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-11-08 20:46 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-11-11 9:32 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/core: " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 5/7] sched: Simplify sched_class::pick_next_task() Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-11 9:32 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/core: " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 13:15 ` [PATCH 6/7] sched/fair: Use mul_u32_u32() Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-11 9:32 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-08 13:16 ` [PATCH 7/7] sched: Further clarify sched_class::set_next_task() Peter Zijlstra
2019-11-11 9:32 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/core: " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20191108204642.GK3079@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=ktkhai@virtuozzo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.