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:   Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:35:07 -0400
From:   Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>, mingo@kernel.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, pjt@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks
Message-ID: <20190425143506.GB979@pauld.bos.csb>
References: <54772e18-2f70-34cc-29ef-b9291f4846e2@linux.intel.com>
 <20190424204337.22283-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190424204337.22283-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:43:36PM +0000 Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> > A minor nitpick.  I find keeping the vruntime base readjustment in
> > core_prio_less probably is more straight forward rather than pass a
> > core_cmp bool around.
> 
> The reason I moved the vruntime base adjustment to __prio_less is
> because, the vruntime seemed alien to __prio_less when looked as
> a standalone function.
> 
> I do not have a strong opinion on both. Probably a better approach
> would be to replace both cpu_prio_less/core_prio_less with prio_less
> which takes the third arguement 'bool on_same_rq'?
> 

Fwiw, I find the two names easier to read than a boolean flag. Could still
be wrapped to a single implementation I suppose. 

An enum to control cpu or core would be more readable, but probably overkill... 


Cheers,
Phil


> Thanks

--