Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks

[Phil Auld]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 08:43:36PM +0000 Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> > A minor nitpick.  I find keeping the vruntime base readjustment in
> > core_prio_less probably is more straight forward rather than pass a
> > core_cmp bool around.
> 
> The reason I moved the vruntime base adjustment to __prio_less is
> because, the vruntime seemed alien to __prio_less when looked as
> a standalone function.
> 
> I do not have a strong opinion on both. Probably a better approach
> would be to replace both cpu_prio_less/core_prio_less with prio_less
> which takes the third arguement 'bool on_same_rq'?
> 

Fwiw, I find the two names easier to read than a boolean flag. Could still
be wrapped to a single implementation I suppose. 

An enum to control cpu or core would be more readable, but probably overkill... 


Cheers,
Phil


> Thanks

--