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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200214152729.6059-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20200214152729.6059-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <ee38d205-b356-9474-785e-e514d81b7d7f@arm.com>
 <20200218132203.GB14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20200218132203.GB14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:15:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtB3qudK8aMq2cx==4RW8t1pz6ymz1Ti0r8oO4TefWzMRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] sched/fair: Reorder enqueue/dequeue_task_fair path
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 14:22, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:37:37PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > On 14/02/2020 16:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > The walk through the cgroup hierarchy during the enqueue/dequeue of a task
> > > is split in 2 distinct parts for throttled cfs_rq without any added value
> > > but making code less readable.
> > >
> > > Change the code ordering such that everything related to a cfs_rq
> > > (throttled or not) will be done in the same loop.
> > >
> > > In addition, the same steps ordering is used when updating a cfs_rq:
> > > - update_load_avg
> > > - update_cfs_group
> > > - update *h_nr_running
> >
> > Is this code change really necessary? You pay with two extra goto's. We
> > still have the two for_each_sched_entity(se)'s because of 'if
> > (se->on_rq); break;'.
>
> IIRC he relies on the presented ordering in patch #5 -- adding the
> running_avg metric.

Yes, that's the main reason, updating load_avg before h_nr_running