Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <13b9fa7f-7ac9-5c1e-a0ff-6b57cb38f28c@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:30:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Avoid obvious double update_rq_clock warning
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Hao Jia <jiahao.os@bytedance.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220418090929.54005-1-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220418090929.54005-1-jiahao.os@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/04/2022 11:09, Hao Jia wrote:

[...]

> -	/*
> -	 * Update the later_rq clock here, because the clock is used
> -	 * by the cpufreq_update_util() inside __add_running_bw().
> -	 */
> -	update_rq_clock(later_rq);
> -	activate_task(later_rq, next_task, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK);
> +	activate_task(later_rq, next_task, 0);

IMHO, this change should go in a separate deadline patch.

The change to call update_rq_clock() before activate_task()
(840d719604b09) is no longer needed since f4904815f97a removed the
add_running_bw() before the activate_task().

[...]