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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210920142614.4891-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
 <20210920142614.4891-2-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <CAKfTPtBTL+KTJdEWv=-6OF8mFvnWUQ1PWKufzhKOASzMcUbnww@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210921075309.GK3959@techsingularity.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210921075309.GK3959@techsingularity.net>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 21 Sep 2021 10:12:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBfYuprtTdeSTfkjt6V9J-mDZ=a7SUAo9g7Bwe=N3am0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Remove redundant lookup of rq in check_preempt_wakeup
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 21 Sept 2021 at 09:53, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 16:26, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > The rq for curr is read during the function preamble, remove the
> > > redundant lookup.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index ff69f245b939..038edfaaae9e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -7190,7 +7190,7 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_
> > >         if (cse_is_idle != pse_is_idle)
> > >                 return;
> > >
> > > -       update_curr(cfs_rq_of(se));
> > > +       update_curr(cfs_rq);
> >
> > se can have been modified by find_matching_se(&se, &pse)
> >
>
> I still expected the cfs_rq to be the same, particularly given that the
> context is about preempting the current task on a runqueue. Is that
> wrong?

As soon as the tasks don't belong to the same cgroup, se can be
modified and cfs_rq will not be the same

>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs