From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the cost of a redundant cpumask_next_wrap in select_idle_cpu
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 22:07:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211123210705.GD721624@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211123112229.7812-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 07:22:29PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> From: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
>
> This patch keeps the same scanning amount, but drops a redundant loop
> of cpumask_next_wrap.
> The original code did for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target + 1), then
> checked --nr; this patch does --nr before doing the next loop, thus,
> it can remove a cpumask_next_wrap() which costs a little bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ff69f24..e2fb3e0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6298,9 +6298,9 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
>
> span_avg = sd->span_weight * avg_idle;
> if (span_avg > 4*avg_cost)
> - nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost);
> + nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost) - 1;
> else
> - nr = 4;
> + nr = 3;
>
> time = cpu_clock(this);
> }
> @@ -6312,11 +6312,11 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, bool
> return i;
>
> } else {
> - if (!--nr)
> - return -1;
> idle_cpu = __select_idle_cpu(cpu, p);
> if ((unsigned int)idle_cpu < nr_cpumask_bits)
> break;
> + if (!--nr)
> + return -1;
> }
> }
That's just confusing code. Isn't it much clearer to write the whole
thing like so ?
nr--;
for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target+1) {
...
if (!nr--)
return -1;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-23 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-23 11:22 [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the cost of a redundant cpumask_next_wrap in select_idle_cpu Barry Song
2021-11-23 21:07 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-11-24 0:07 ` Barry Song
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211123210705.GD721624@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=song.bao.hua@hisilicon.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.