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;
Date:   Sat, 22 Apr 2023 12:42:05 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Qais Yousef <qyousef@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Zimuzo Ezeozue <zezeozue@google.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/14] sched: Replace rq->curr access w/ rq_curr(rq)
Message-ID: <20230422104205.GF1214746@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230411042511.1606592-1-jstultz@google.com>
 <20230411042511.1606592-9-jstultz@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230411042511.1606592-9-jstultz@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:25:05AM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> +static inline struct task_struct *rq_curr(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +	return rq->curr_exec;
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *rq_curr_rcu(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +	return rcu_dereference(rq->curr_exec);
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *rq_curr_once(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +	return READ_ONCE(rq->curr_exec);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rq_set_curr(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(rq->curr_exec, task);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + *  XXX jstultz: seems like rcu_assign_pointer above would also
> + *               work for this, but trying to match usage.
> + */
> +static inline void rq_set_curr_rcu_init(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> +	RCU_INIT_POINTER(rq->curr_exec, task);
> +}

> +static inline struct task_struct *rq_selected(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +       return rq->curr_sched;
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *rq_selected_rcu(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +       return rcu_dereference(rq->curr_sched);
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *rq_selected_once(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> +       return READ_ONCE(rq->curr_sched);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rq_set_selected(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *t)
> +{
> +       rcu_assign_pointer(rq->curr_sched, t);
> +}

How is any of that helping? That's just making it harder to read.

Can we please just keep it rq->curr and rq->proxy and stop this wrapper
fettish.