On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:32:49PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> +bool cfs_prio_less(struct task_struct *a, struct task_struct *b)
> +{
> + struct sched_entity *sea = &a->se;
> + struct sched_entity *seb = &b->se;
> + bool samecpu = task_cpu(a) == task_cpu(b);
> + struct task_struct *p;
> + s64 delta;
> +
> + if (samecpu) {
> + /* vruntime is per cfs_rq */
> + while (!is_same_group(sea, seb)) {
> + int sea_depth = sea->depth;
> + int seb_depth = seb->depth;
> +
> + if (sea_depth >= seb_depth)
> + sea = parent_entity(sea);
> + if (sea_depth <= seb_depth)
> + seb = parent_entity(seb);
> + }
> +
> + delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + /* crosscpu: compare root level se's vruntime to decide priority */
> + while (sea->parent)
> + sea = sea->parent;
> + while (seb->parent)
> + seb = seb->parent;
> + delta = (s64)(sea->vruntime - seb->vruntime);
> +
> +out:
> + p = delta > 0 ? b : a;
> + trace_printk("picked %s/%d %s: %Ld %Ld %Ld\n", p->comm, p->pid,
> + samecpu ? "samecpu" : "crosscpu",
> + sea->vruntime, seb->vruntime, delta);
> +
> + return delta > 0;
> }
Heh.. I suppose the good news is that Rik is trying very hard to kill
the nested runqueues, which would make this _much_ easier again.
