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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 DE161C169C4 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:51:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F832080F for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 16:51:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="oyX085fI" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727418AbfBHQvt (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:49 -0500 Received: from mail-it1-f193.google.com ([209.85.166.193]:52273 "EHLO mail-it1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726524AbfBHQvs (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2019 11:51:48 -0500 Received: by mail-it1-f193.google.com with SMTP id r11so4937600itc.2 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:51:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tg1qL1LrF6xs7SLg9oM+gORvqkIR9b3G0sTURrxKlck=; b=oyX085fIiCVjzpcxTKHWz2t+9h0xyLplqGJQBiRAJgCqy5YB4Ys+Pw8OcgHAFUie5a oECImoZPNcN6zwiDDEzF1lOjUvlRhKCRexgIAji2u4MKxOreMQ66z3YV9S/zpXBoqR5+ DlW7PjnNfapGsTFNH6h55GV6LZwJlOufniqvwDlHoRu3KDVPB+71fiWOk3wk9R1mngoc v/c20hvx/cSB9EiQ/ppauoDIR41XN4YCTZ0CP0PJrkEvYGcoS6p27xmhOaLqZQOWKN6R nMSHU8UucVQtNRv9frRZ3sS3b/F9y08rol0Pr5DkFJR4XguNSvt+oE///Rp2nGgVZDV9 hrZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tg1qL1LrF6xs7SLg9oM+gORvqkIR9b3G0sTURrxKlck=; b=RgIOTKX8TijA8ghXPTPgTwkAb2sxECSczb5Vk91pDmHy7Ss70YDbH6squYy6O78ClD BYn5Aidah2BHNLAIf1me3srhzJMFQYkXMMkpDhv+clCloTHbKhPJprDtU3SlD5Xq1fNM +B0B5Kpi9DyFFb4kM5bhdXo4XklHWeohoZUPZ51DMPqoJocmsQopwqDMI/IDYqNwcRsY CCH/oZvbtXBZAPBYssnc6QrScZdUDpxEZT8LODGjGEIbarE9Hra+DDATN71LlSRIkVFd wEQ8hk6Df5+NitQQj20W40/0BnFMv9Gt56iCEnQR3WN64a3ZS3NKsN12bDAa+3v4PXDV B2YQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZOlwqRGyMZjuB43X9tHkZcurcmvgustOC7WJA3FVCUc7bp0Rbk JDYrRrarWw4sGgNtxG1OCpjrtYRZ13U/brydaneFmQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZOxU4sIbmXA/T6XyiCWQEhEi/+RbBodnGtcAXm+CPt9qP5yynuSXi6ckmKEnz+n1In8V/PQJrvU7ihNUuCel8= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:de45:: with SMTP id e5mr7128442ioq.294.1549644707383; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 08:51:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1549469662-13614-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1549469662-13614-2-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20190208154009.GK32511@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190208163045.GD32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190208165100.GM32511@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20190208165100.GM32511@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:51:36 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: optimization of update_blocked_averages() To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , Sargun Dhillon , Xie XiuQi , xiezhipeng1@huawei.com, Linus Torvalds Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 05:47:53PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 16:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Good point but this should go after the for_each_sched_entity() loop > > > > > > Indeed, but that loop does enqueue and can throttle again, should that > > > not also get that additional list_add_leaf_cfs_rq() loop we added to > > > enqueue_task_fair() to finish the add? > > > > Initially, I added this additional loop but finally removed it because > > I didn't hit it during my tests. IIRC, we are protected by > > throttle_count in such case, which is not the case when we enqueue a > > task > > Fair enough; and the to-be added assert will notify us if we got that > wrong :-) > > I'll add the assert, no need to re-send. Thanks > > Thanks!