From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752916AbdCHPgt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:36:49 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:36752 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753396AbdCHPgq (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:36:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+KHdyVitkZvSpr_OvzpeZ4BFQ1Y5RiLj-EtkSWTRHu56dKzzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1486543409-11493-1-git-send-email-urezki@gmail.com>
 <1486543409-11493-3-git-send-email-urezki@gmail.com> <20170209122218.GE6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CA+KHdyUow0R_0syySvazFRe2gM2AnZFmCqH_x+KD=yBAOew6Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170213135149.GQ6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CA+KHdyV9zh9wj6VsFVAt2R1G=q7is2=QyEF1EJbptRxaXr429A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+KHdyVM+U-SA-6R9zU1t3SR44L3uMbXKMuwSk4XLo3JpkVZDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1f0bc6a4-7e17-98bf-2ef0-a805e32a5591@arm.com> <CA+KHdyVitkZvSpr_OvzpeZ4BFQ1Y5RiLj-EtkSWTRHu56dKzzw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 16:35:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+KHdyUAsb6Q+3zG6L=kLU8gWPMBA1O7ScShb-ysBJUSeg+Z4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@sonymobile.com>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello.

Let's decide how to proceed with https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/334 patch.
Despite it is not a big change, i think it is important and ready to
be submited,
unless there are still any comments.

--
Uladzislau Rezki

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Dietmar Eggemann
> <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 02/14/2017 06:28 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So that is useful information that should have been in the Changelog.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, can you respin this patch with adjusted Changelog and taking Mike's
>>>>> feedback?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, i will prepare a patch accordingly, no problem.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I worry about the effects of this on !PREEMPT kernels, the first
>>>>> hunk (which explicitly states is about latency) should be under
>>>>> CONFIG_PREEMPT to match the similar case we already have in
>>>>> detach_tasks().
>>
>>
>> This one uses #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT whereas you use
>> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT). Is there a particular reason for this?
>>
> I just wanted to put it under one line instead of using #ifdefs in my
> second hunk,
> so that is a matter of taste. Also, please find below different
> variants of how it can be
> rewriten:
>
> <variant 1>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
>     if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
> #endif
>         if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance)
>             goto next;
> <variant 1>
>
> <variant 2>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
>     if (env->idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE &&
>             (load / 2) > env->imbalance)
>         goto next;
> #else
>     if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance)
>         goto next;
> #endif
> <variant 2>
>
> If somebody has any preferences or concerns, please comment, i will
> re-spin the patch.
>
> --
> Uladzislau Rezki