Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 21:02:17 +0800
From:   Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@xfusion.com>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
CC:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <stone.xulei@xfusion.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: remove next_buddy_marked
Message-ID: <ZXr82WOsSCIxkuPa@fedora>
References: <202312141319+0800-wangjinchao@xfusion.com>
 <CAKfTPtCrBvyxJzeRDARFjbU8P5BYW27So7gYE4FPWBDC0=HL3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <83099016-f609-4ac0-94ab-909ac9c96582@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <83099016-f609-4ac0-94ab-909ac9c96582@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:21:53PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> On 12/14/23 4:18 PM, Vincent Guittot Wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:20, Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@xfusion.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Remove unused `next_buddy_marked` in `check_preempt_wakeup_fair`
> > > 
> > 
> > Fixes: 5e963f2bd465 ("sched/fair: Commit to EEVDF")
> 
> After this commit @pse preempts curr without being the NEXT_BUDDY, but
> IMHO it should be, so how about this?
> 
> @@ -8259,8 +8259,11 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int
>         /*
>          * XXX pick_eevdf(cfs_rq) != se ?
>          */
> -       if (pick_eevdf(cfs_rq) == pse)
> +       if (pick_eevdf(cfs_rq) == pse) {
> +               if (!next_buddy_marked)
> +                       set_next_buddy(pse);
>                 goto preempt;
> +       }
> 
>         return;
> 
> which will align with before.
Seizing this opportunity to inquire about a question:
What does "buddy" mean in the context of the scheduler?

Is the effect the same between 
    preempting after pick_evfd(cfs_rq) == pse 
and 
    preempting after set_next_buddy(pse) followed by pick_evfd(cfs_rq) == pse?
Would both scenarios result in pse becoming the next scheduled se?"