From: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched_ext: idle: Refresh idle masks during idle-to-idle transitions
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 21:19:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z4GA7mUGNDoAZbMc@gpd3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z4F3Xcgl9CUhHVyn@slm.duckdns.org>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 09:39:09AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Andrea.
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 09:46:25AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> ...
> > + if (do_notify) {
> > + if (SCX_HAS_OP(update_idle) && !scx_rq_bypassing(rq))
> > + SCX_CALL_OP(SCX_KF_REST, update_idle, cpu_of(rq), idle);
> > + } else {
> > + bool is_prev_idle;
> > +
> > + /* Refresh idle masks during idle-to-idle transitions */
>
> Can you add a bit more explanation on what case this path is handling here
> or in the function comment? The function comment explains what it's about
> but doesn't quite explain the exact sequence which isn't very intuitive.
Ok.
>
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + is_prev_idle = is_idle_task(rcu_dereference(rq->curr));
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > +
> > + if (!is_prev_idle)
> > return;
>
> This function is always called under the rq lock, right? We can assert that
> and skip the rcu dancing.
Yes, good point!
>
> > }
> >
> > + if (!static_branch_likely(&scx_builtin_idle_enabled))
> > + return;
>
> Would structure like the following be better? It makes clear that the last
> condition checks are for the builtin idle path.
>
> if (SCX_HAS_OP(update_idle) && do_notify && !scx_rq_bypassing(rq))
> // call ops.update_idle().
>
> if (!scx_builtin_idle_enabled || (!do_notify && !is_idle_task(rq->curr)))
> return;
It's also more compact, I like it.
I'll apply these changes and rephrase the comments to better clarify the
logic of the different code paths.
Thanks,
-Andrea
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-10 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-10 8:46 [PATCH v6] sched_ext: idle: Refresh idle masks during idle-to-idle transitions Andrea Righi
2025-01-10 19:39 ` Tejun Heo
2025-01-10 20:19 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
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=Z4GA7mUGNDoAZbMc@gpd3 \
--to=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=void@manifault.com \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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