Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Remove redundant lookup of rq in check_preempt_wakeup

[Mel Gorman]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 10:21:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:53:09AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 09:21:16AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 16:26, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The rq for curr is read during the function preamble, remove the
> > > > redundant lookup.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > index ff69f245b939..038edfaaae9e 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > > @@ -7190,7 +7190,7 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_
> > > >         if (cse_is_idle != pse_is_idle)
> > > >                 return;
> > > >
> > > > -       update_curr(cfs_rq_of(se));
> > > > +       update_curr(cfs_rq);
> > > 
> > > se can have been modified by find_matching_se(&se, &pse)
> > > 
> > 
> > I still expected the cfs_rq to be the same, particularly given that the
> > context is about preempting the current task on a runqueue. Is that
> > wrong?
> 
> Yes. There's a cfs_rq for every se. What we do in find_matching_se() is
> walk up the hiarachy until both are in the same cfs_rq, otherwse we
> cannot compare them.
> 
> Fundamentally this means the effective cfs_rq also changes.

Ok, thanks. I'll read into this more but the patch is dead.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs