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 S932364AbcFBHsQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 03:48:16 -0400
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:32431 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932331AbcFBHsO (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 03:48:14 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,405,1459839600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="114652542"
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:50:58 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] sched/fair: Skip detach and attach new group task
Message-ID: <20160601235058.GB8105@intel.com>
References: <1464752466-3494-1-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com>
 <1464752466-3494-3-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtCsk5UC0KmHqkpZ0N7HZNA=JisGTMF10L2Q+rHy8is9UQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160601192118.GX18670@intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtBrh1thRMtA2Y5S17M_8d2BtBsCyCdWOAyFkr8-9jeKVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160601234111.GA8105@intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtBPkBu0qbOm3fPhbDZAa6t=aW6VE9bps_9k8dmA0k3=cw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBPkBu0qbOm3fPhbDZAa6t=aW6VE9bps_9k8dmA0k3=cw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 2 June 2016 at 01:41, Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:29:53AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> > My response to your above two comments:
> >> >
> >> > As I said, there can be four possibilities going through the above sequences:
> >> >
> >> > (1) on_rq, (2) !on_rq, (a) was fair class (representing last_update_time != 0),
> >> > (b) never was fair class (representing last_update_time == 0, but may not be
> >> > limited to this)
> >> >
> >> > Crossing them, we have (1)(a), (1)(b), (2)(a), and (2)(b).
> >> >
> >> > Some will attach twice, which are (1)(b) and (2)(b), the other will attach
> >> > once, which are (1)(a) and (2)(a). The difficult part is they can be attached
> >> > at different places.
> >>
> >> ok for (1)(b) but not for (2)(b) and it's far from "attached mostly
> >> twice every time"
> >
> > You are right. That claim is reckless, I will change it to:
> > "sometimes attached twice".
> 
> Or you can just describe the used case (1)(b) which is the only one AFAICT

You are right again, ;)