Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 12 Jun 2020 22:25:30 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Cc:     Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@digitalocean.com>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@digitalocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@gmail.com>,
        "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.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 11/13] sched: migration changes for core scheduling
Message-ID: <20200613022530.GA110162@google.com>
References: <cover.1583332764.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <279f7f6606ea18e14d64517840bcada56deb0ce3.1583332765.git.vpillai@digitalocean.com>
 <20200612132127.GA90012@google.com>
 <CANaguZDguzOCvNmO1u7CZQU2DSFW0+uPt7ZwL18w4bG=-_Xe3Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANaguZDguzOCvNmO1u7CZQU2DSFW0+uPt7ZwL18w4bG=-_Xe3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 05:32:01PM -0400, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> > AFAIR, that's what v4 did:
> >
> >                 if (available_idle_cpu(cpu))
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> >                         if (sched_core_enabled(cpu_rq(cpu)) &&
> >                             (p->core_cookie == cpu_rq(cpu)->core->core_cookie))
> >                                 break;
> > #else
> >                         break;
> > #endif
> >
> This patch was initially not in v4 and this is a merging of 4 patches
> suggested post-v4. During the initial round, code was like above. But since
> there looked like a code duplication in the different migration paths,
> it was consolidated into sched_core_cookie_match() and it caused this
> extra logic to this specific code path. As you mentioned, I also feel
> we do not need to check for core idleness in this path.

Ok, so I take it that you will make it so in v6 then, unless of course
someone else objects.

thanks!

- Joel