2007-08-09 04:30:55

by Mitchell Erblich

Subject: Question: sched_rt.c : is RT check needed within a RT func? dequeue_task_rt() calls update_curr_rt() which checks for priority of RR or FIFO :

1) * Possible wasted stats overhead during dequeue..
sched_rt.c:
Is RT check needed within a RT func?
dequeue_task_rt() calls update_curr_rt()
which checks for priority of RR or FIFO.

WITHIN..
static inline void update_curr_rt(struct rq *rq)

are the two lines..
if (!task_has_rt_policy(curr))
return;

Generally if I am reading this right, then what
RT task is neither FIFO or RR???

Thus, I think those two lines could be removed.

2) nit....
The comment within sched_rt.c
-----> Adding/removing a task to/from a priority array:
Is placed before dequeue_task_rt() where
enqueue_task_rt() is placed above the comment

Thus, the comment should be moved above enqueue_task_rt()

Mitchell Erblich

2007-08-09 08:47:25

by Dmitry Adamushko

Subject: Re: Question: sched_rt.c : is RT check needed within a RT func? dequeue_task_rt() calls update_curr_rt() which checks for priority of RR or FIFO :

On 09/08/07, Mitchell Erblich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1) * Possible wasted stats overhead during dequeue..
> sched_rt.c:
> Is RT check needed within a RT func?
> dequeue_task_rt() calls update_curr_rt()
> which checks for priority of RR or FIFO.
> [ ... ]
> Thus, I think those two lines could be removed.
>
> 2) nit....
> The comment within sched_rt.c
> -----> Adding/removing a task to/from a priority array:
> Is placed before dequeue_task_rt() where
> enqueue_task_rt() is placed above the comment
>

Both suggestions sound good. I guess, a patch would be welcomed :-)


>
> Mitchell Erblich
>

--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko