MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHOvCC5Tde6aTtcAeHig1eoAp_9FZGTd4XtFGbmrhy-NoV7zDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y+oMND+7L7S9mByY@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <Y+oMND+7L7S9mByY@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Feb 2023 08:44:43 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHOvCC4Fq6W00BO_w8+nC4SuQBeSX5eMBFMe9bgwpihCPH7TCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel/sched/core.c] Review and Modified of the prio_less()
 about sched class priority.
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Thank you for answering.
Is it going to be reflected in your patch?

JaeJoon Jung.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 at 19:08, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:11:04AM +0900, JaeJoon Jung wrote:
> > The sched_class structure is defined to be sorted by pointer size.
> > @@ -176,22 +161,18 @@ static inline int __task_prio(struct task_struct *p)
> >  /* real prio, less is less */
> >  static inline bool prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct
> > task_struct *b, bool in_fi)
> >  {
> > +        int less = a->sched_class - b->sched_class;
> >
> > +        if (less == 0) {
> > +                if (a->sched_class == &dl_sched_class)
> > +                        return !dl_time_before(a->dl.deadline, b->dl.deadline);
> >
> > +                else if (a->sched_class == &fair_sched_class)
> > +                        return cfs_prio_less(a, b, in_fi);
> > +                else
> > +                        return false;
> > +        } else
> > +                return (less > 0) ? true : false;
> >  }
> >
> > If the prio_less() function is modified as above, the __task_prio()
> > function is not required.
>
> Yeah, except your patch is whitespace mangled..