On 07/03/2012 02:34 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> From: Michael Wang <[email protected]>
>
> it's impossible to enter else branch if we have set skip_clock_update
> in task_yield_fair(), as yield_to_task_fair() will directly return
> true after invoke task_yield_fair().
Could I get some conclusion on this patch? Should we clean up that peace
of code or leave it there?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 7 -------
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 9bb7d28..77c14aa 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4737,13 +4737,6 @@ again:
> */
> if (preempt && rq != p_rq)
> resched_task(p_rq->curr);
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * We might have set it in task_yield_fair(), but are
> - * not going to schedule(), so don't want to skip
> - * the next update.
> - */
> - rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
> }
>
> out:
>
On 08/10/2012 11:05 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 02:34 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> From: Michael Wang <[email protected]>
>>
>> it's impossible to enter else branch if we have set skip_clock_update
>> in task_yield_fair(), as yield_to_task_fair() will directly return
>> true after invoke task_yield_fair().
>
> Could I get some conclusion on this patch? Should we clean up that peace
> of code or leave it there?
s /peace/piece and cc mike...
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 7 -------
>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 9bb7d28..77c14aa 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -4737,13 +4737,6 @@ again:
>> */
>> if (preempt && rq != p_rq)
>> resched_task(p_rq->curr);
>> - } else {
>> - /*
>> - * We might have set it in task_yield_fair(), but are
>> - * not going to schedule(), so don't want to skip
>> - * the next update.
>> - */
>> - rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
>> }
>>
>> out:
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 11:10 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 08/10/2012 11:05 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> > On 07/03/2012 02:34 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> From: Michael Wang <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> it's impossible to enter else branch if we have set skip_clock_update
> >> in task_yield_fair(), as yield_to_task_fair() will directly return
> >> true after invoke task_yield_fair().
> >
> > Could I get some conclusion on this patch? Should we clean up that peace
> > of code or leave it there?
> s /peace/piece and cc mike...
If some other class grows yield_to_task (ick), it'll have to be looked
at again, but hopefully for all eternity that branch is dead. Bury it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michael Wang
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/sched/core.c | 7 -------
> >> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> index 9bb7d28..77c14aa 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> @@ -4737,13 +4737,6 @@ again:
> >> */
> >> if (preempt && rq != p_rq)
> >> resched_task(p_rq->curr);
> >> - } else {
> >> - /*
> >> - * We might have set it in task_yield_fair(), but are
> >> - * not going to schedule(), so don't want to skip
> >> - * the next update.
> >> - */
> >> - rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> out:
> >>
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
>