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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox