From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pjt@google.com,
yuyang.du@intel.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
bsegall@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: fix hierarchical order in rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:31:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160601123140.GW3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1464083710-4370-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:55:10AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 218f8e8..6d3fbf2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -290,15 +290,31 @@ static inline void list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> * Ensure we either appear before our parent (if already
> * enqueued) or force our parent to appear after us when it is
> * enqueued. The fact that we always enqueue bottom-up
> + * reduces this to two cases and a specila case for the root
'special'
> + * cfs_rq.
> */
> if (cfs_rq->tg->parent &&
> cfs_rq->tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))]->on_list) {
> + /* Add the child just before its parent */
> + list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list,
> + &(cfs_rq->tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))]->leaf_cfs_rq_list));
> + rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone = &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
> + } else if (!cfs_rq->tg->parent) {
> + /*
> + * cfs_rq without parent should be
> + * at the end of the list
> + */
> list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list,
> &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list);
> + rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone = &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * Our parent has not already been added so make sure
> + * that it will be put after us
> + */
> + list_add_rcu(&cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list,
> + rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone);
> + rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone = &cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
> }
>
> cfs_rq->on_list = 1;
Paul, Ben ?
This used to be critical for update_shares() (now
update_blocked_averages), but IIRC is not critical for that since PELT.
I find its more readable with like so..
Also; I feel the comments can use more love; my head hurts ;-)
---
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -286,35 +286,38 @@ static inline struct cfs_rq *group_cfs_r
static inline void list_add_leaf_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
{
if (!cfs_rq->on_list) {
+ struct rq *rq = rq_of(cfs_rq);
+ int cpu = cpu_of(rq);
+
/*
* Ensure we either appear before our parent (if already
* enqueued) or force our parent to appear after us when it is
* enqueued. The fact that we always enqueue bottom-up
- * reduces this to two cases and a specila case for the root
+ * reduces this to two cases and a special case for the root
* cfs_rq.
*/
if (cfs_rq->tg->parent &&
- cfs_rq->tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))]->on_list) {
+ cfs_rq->tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->on_list) {
/* Add the child just before its parent */
list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list,
- &(cfs_rq->tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu_of(rq_of(cfs_rq))]->leaf_cfs_rq_list));
- rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone = &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
+ &(cfs_rq->tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->leaf_cfs_rq_list));
+ rq->leaf_alone = &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
} else if (!cfs_rq->tg->parent) {
/*
* cfs_rq without parent should be
* at the end of the list
*/
list_add_tail_rcu(&cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list,
- &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list);
- rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone = &rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
+ &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list);
+ rq->leaf_alone = &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
} else {
/*
* Our parent has not already been added so make sure
* that it will be put after us
*/
list_add_rcu(&cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list,
- rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone);
- rq_of(cfs_rq)->leaf_alone = &cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
+ rq->leaf_alone);
+ rq->leaf_alone = &cfs_rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list;
}
cfs_rq->on_list = 1;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-01 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-24 8:55 [RFC PATCH] sched: fix hierarchical order in rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list Vincent Guittot
2016-05-24 9:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-05-25 17:40 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2016-05-26 9:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-06-01 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-06-01 17:42 ` bsegall
2016-06-02 7:42 ` Vincent Guittot
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=20160601123140.GW3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=yuyang.du@intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox