On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 01:39:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:23:54PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index 775b0c7..fa12ce5 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -3217,6 +3217,8 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct > > sched_entity *se, int flags) > > * Update run-time statistics of the 'current'. > > */ > > update_curr(cfs_rq); > > + if (entity_is_task(se) && task_of(se)->state == TASK_DEAD) > > + flags &= !DEQUEUE_SLEEP; > > dequeue_entity_load_avg(cfs_rq, se, flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP); > > > > update_stats_dequeue(cfs_rq, se); > > I know this is entirely redundant at this point (we took Yuyang's > patches), but this is the wrong way to go about doing this.
Yes, I'm still working my way through Yuyang's changes. > You add extra code the hot dequeue path for something that 'never' > happens. We have the sched_class::task_dead call for that. I don't mind using sched_class::task_dead() instead. The reason why I didn't go that way is that we have to retake the rq->lock or mess with cfs_rq::removed_load instead of just not adding the utilization in the first place when we have the rq->lock. Anyway, it is probably redundant by now. I will check Yuyang's code to see if he already fixed this problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
