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 S932983AbcJZLQ2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:16:28 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:48987 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932865AbcJZLQW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:16:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:16:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6 v5] sched: propagate load during synchronous
 attach/detach
Message-ID: <20161026111617.GF3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1476695653-12309-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1476695653-12309-5-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <deef7d82-eae8-6f37-6c6d-fcb3523df97d@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtBR1YTEwqQ0Ys4h17YhW8z45QmqkS1j7phN6MShZ++0cQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBR1YTEwqQ0Ys4h17YhW8z45QmqkS1j7phN6MShZ++0cQ@mail.gmail.com>
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 Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:05:49AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > The 'detach across' and 'attach across' in detach_task_cfs_rq() and
> > attach_entity_cfs_rq() do the same so couldn't you not create a
> > function propagate_foo() for it? This would avoid this ifdef as
> > well.
> >
> > You could further create in your '[PATCH 1/6 v5] sched: factorize attach entity':
> >
> > detach_entity_cfs_rq() {
> >   update_load_avg()
> >   detach_entity_load_avg()
> >   update_tg_load_avg()
> >   propagate_load_avg()
> > }
> >
> > and then we would have:
> >
> > attach_task_cfs_rq() -> attach_entity_cfs_rq() -> propagate_foo()
> > detach_task_cfs_rq() -> detach_entity_cfs_rq() -> propagate_foo()
> >
> > I guess you didn't because it would be only called one time but this
> > symmetric approaches are easier to remember (at least for me).
> 
> Yes i haven't created attach_entity_cfs_rq because it would be used only once.
> Regarding the creation of a propagate_foo function, i have just
> followed a similar skeleton as what is done in
> enqueue/dequeue_task_fair
> 
> I don't have strong opinion about creating this indirection for code
> readability. Others, have you got a preference ?

I think I agree with Dietmar. Duplicate code needs a helper function and
it would be nice to keep symmetry, even if there's only a single
call site.