Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] sched/fair: Take into account latency priority at wakeup

[Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>]

Hi Vincent,
On 2022-09-25 at 16:39:05 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> +static long wakeup_latency_gran(struct sched_entity *curr, struct sched_entity *se)
> +{
> +	long latency_offset = se->latency_offset;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * A negative latency offset means that the sched_entity has latency
> +	 * requirement that needs to be evaluated versus other entity.
> +	 * Otherwise, use the latency weight to evaluate how much scheduling
> +	 * delay is acceptable by se.
> +	 */
> +	if ((se->latency_offset < 0) || (curr->latency_offset < 0))
Maybe use latency_offset < 0 directly?
BTW, is it the policy that requires the user to provide a negative
latency nice so as to tell the kernel to compare between two tasks?
Maybe I missed the scenario, I'm thinking of the reason why we used
" || " rather than " && " above. To be more specific, why not comparing
se and curr only when they both have high requirement on latency(negative)?

The benefit of using "||" I'm thinking of is that, if se->latency_offset < 0
and curr->latency_offset > 0, the latency_offset would be even smaller than
se->latency_offset, which will make the preemption easier. And vice verse.

thanks,
Chenyu
> +		latency_offset -= curr->latency_offset;
> +
> +	return latency_offset;
> +}