Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 5 Oct 2018 10:26:58 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info
Message-ID: <20181005102658.38ecde83@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <1538778131-44406-1-git-send-email-peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
References: <1538778131-44406-1-git-send-email-peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 06:22:11 +0800
Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> find_lock_lowest_rq may or not releease rq lock when return
> lowest_rq=NULL, but it is fuzzy.
> If not releasing rq lock, it is unnecessary to re-call
> pick_next_pushable_task.
> When CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, not releasing rq lock and return
> lowest_rq=null frequently happens in a simple test case:
> Four different rt priority tasks run on limited two cpus.
> Thanks for Steven Rostedt's advice.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/rt.c | 6 ++++--
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 2e2955a..be0fc43 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1754,7 +1754,7 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
>  				     !task_on_rq_queued(task))) {
>  
>  				double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
> -				lowest_rq = NULL;
> +				lowest_rq = RETRY_TASK;
>  				break;
>  			}
>  		}
> @@ -1830,7 +1830,9 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
>  
>  	/* find_lock_lowest_rq locks the rq if found */
>  	lowest_rq = find_lock_lowest_rq(next_task, rq);
> -	if (!lowest_rq) {
> +	if (!lowest_rq)
> +		goto out;
> +	if (lowest_rq == RETRY_TASK) {

This probably makes no difference, and can be blown off as just a
preference, but should this be:

	if (!lowest_rq) {
		goto out;
	} else if (lowest_rq == RETRY_TASK) {

The logic is the same regardless, so it's really just a matter of taste.

That said:

Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>

-- Steve


>  		struct task_struct *task;
>  		/*
>  		 * find_lock_lowest_rq releases rq->lock