Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched: Handle on_list ancestor in list_add_leaf_cfs_rq()

["\"Jan H. Schönherr\"" <schnhrr@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Am 24.08.2011 23:32, schrieb Paul Turner:
>>> Now I don't really like the above because its hard to make the code go
>>> away in the !FAIR_GROUP case, but maybe we can come up with something
>>> for that.
>>
>> Hmmm... you might want to reconsider my original approach to solve this:
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/18/86
>>
>> That might have been the cleanest one in this respect.
>>
>> Paul Turner did not like the introduced in-order removal, but the
>> out-of-order removal is causing most problems.
>>
> 
> Sorry for the delayed reply -- I owe you some feedback on the updated
> versions but have been buried with other work.

No problem.

> What I didn't like about the original approach was specifically the
> positional dependence on enqueue/dequeue. 

Maybe I misunderstood you, then.

If we can guarantee in-order removal of leaf_cfs_rqs, then there is
no positional dependency. Any SE can be enqueued and dequeued anytime.

OTOH, the RCU splice variant has a positional dependence: calling
enqueue_entity() outside of enqueue_task_fair() can go wrong easily as it
depends on being called bottom-up and requires its caller to maintain state.

This is also partly true for the leaf_insertion_point variant: if a caller
maintains state, then the pair enqueue_entity/enqueue_leaf_cfs_rq() also
depends on being called bottom up.


> If we can't do the splicing
> properly then I think we want something like:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/18/348 to avoid shooting ourselves in the
> future later.
> 
> See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/19/178 for why this should be cheap.

As far as I can tell, all three variants proposed so far work.

It is probably a matter of taste in the end. I'll happily help with
whatever version tastes best. :)

Regards
Jan