From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C3A9C43219 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C65D2067D for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726861AbfDYOfL (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:35:11 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58102 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726020AbfDYOfL (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:35:11 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 051D8307EA92; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pauld.bos.csb (dhcp-17-51.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.51]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E150F600C0; Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 10:35:07 -0400 From: Phil Auld To: Vineeth Remanan Pillai Cc: Tim Chen , Nishanth Aravamudan , Julien Desfossez , Peter Zijlstra , Aubrey Li , mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, pjt@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com, Aaron Lu , Valentin Schneider , Mel Gorman , Pawan Gupta , Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Message-ID: <20190425143506.GB979@pauld.bos.csb> References: <54772e18-2f70-34cc-29ef-b9291f4846e2@linux.intel.com> <20190424204337.22283-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190424204337.22283-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.44]); Thu, 25 Apr 2019 14:35:11 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:43:36PM +0000 Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote: > > A minor nitpick. I find keeping the vruntime base readjustment in > > core_prio_less probably is more straight forward rather than pass a > > core_cmp bool around. > > The reason I moved the vruntime base adjustment to __prio_less is > because, the vruntime seemed alien to __prio_less when looked as > a standalone function. > > I do not have a strong opinion on both. Probably a better approach > would be to replace both cpu_prio_less/core_prio_less with prio_less > which takes the third arguement 'bool on_same_rq'? > Fwiw, I find the two names easier to read than a boolean flag. Could still be wrapped to a single implementation I suppose. An enum to control cpu or core would be more readable, but probably overkill... Cheers, Phil > Thanks --