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 S935354AbdCVQaz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:30:55 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:45588 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S934214AbdCVQas (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:30:48 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix ftq noise bench regression
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
References: <1489758442-2877-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <418a2486-51ec-01f4-2af5-0988bc704a28@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtDgZSEof9=4Yq8n3Biu6q9o=RdHB178F0RZzkOwNVYjQA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <d6e3ade4-2d71-25b1-0477-c4be2756cb75@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:22:24 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDgZSEof9=4Yq8n3Biu6q9o=RdHB178F0RZzkOwNVYjQA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 22/03/17 09:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 21 March 2017 at 18:46, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On 17/03/17 13:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Reported-by: ying.huang@linux.intel.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
>>> Fixes: 4e5160766fcc ("sched/fair: Propagate asynchrous detach")

[...]

>> Why not turn skip_blocked_update(se) into blocked_update_needed(cpu, cfs_rq)?
>> Saves a couple of patch lines:
> 
> Are you sure that we are saving some patch lines ?

Sorry, it's actually the same :-)

> 
> I tend to agree on the name and but not on parameters.
> IMO, it's easier to understand the purpose of
> blocked_update_needed(se) compared to blocked_update_needed(cpu,
> cfs_rq)

OK, so:

-               /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent */
-               if (cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu])
+               /* Propagate pending load changes to the parent if any */
+               if (blocked_update_needed(cfs_rq->tg->se[cpu]))

and

+static inline bool blocked_update_needed(struct sched_entity *se)
+{
+       struct cfs_rq *gcfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
+
+       /* cfs_rq of a root task_group has no sched_entity counterpart */
+       if (!se)
+               return false;
+
+       /*
+        * If sched_entity still have not null load or utilization, we
have to
+        * decay it.
+        */
....

Would make sense to me ...