From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the duplicate check from group_has_capacity()
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:16:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjv9hp546d.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <905d8887-e79c-daf6-cbce-80fd0509e37d@gmail.com>
On 11/08/20 14:12, Qi Zheng wrote:
> On 2020/8/11 下午8:48, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 11/08/20 12:44, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>> In fact, at the beginning, I added unlikely() here to hint the compiler:
>>>
>>> - if ((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>>> - (sgs->group_runnable * 100))
>>> + if (unlikely((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>>> + (sgs->group_runnable * 100)))
>>>
>>> The corresponding patch is as follows:
>>>
>>> [PATCH]sched/core: add unlikely in group_has_capacity()
>>>
>>> Do you think it is necessary?
>>
>> The "unlikely" approach has the benefit of keeping all corner cases in
>> place. I was tempted to say it could still make sense to get rid of the
>> extra check entirely, given that it has an impact only when:
>>
>> - sum_nr_running == group_weight
>> - group capacity has been noticeably reduced
>>
>> If sum_nr_running < group_weight, we won't evaluate it.
>> If sum_nr_running > group_weight, we either won't call into
>> group_has_capacity() or we'll have checked it already in
>> group_overloaded().
>>
>> That said, it does make very much sense to check it in that ==
>> case. Vincent might have a different take on this, but right now I'd say
>> the unlikely approach is the safest one of the two.
>>
>
> So what should I do next? Do I resubmit a patch with unlikely() or
> add your email to the old patch([PATCH]sched/core: add unlikely in
> group_has_capacity())? Or continue to wait for suggestions from
> other maintainers?
I guess you can add a reply to the original thread where you had the
unlikely() to point out *removing* the check isn't 100% harmless.
Vincent might want to have a look at it, but AFAIA he's on holidays ATM.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-11 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-10 1:00 [PATCH] sched/fair: Remove the duplicate check from group_has_capacity() Qi Zheng
2020-08-10 18:33 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-11 3:39 ` Qi Zheng
2020-08-11 10:38 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-11 11:44 ` Qi Zheng
2020-08-11 12:48 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-08-11 13:12 ` Qi Zheng
2020-08-11 20:16 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-08-12 0:46 ` Qi Zheng
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=jhjv9hp546d.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=arch0.zheng@gmail.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=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).