Re: [PATCH 6/6 v3] sched/eevdf: Speedup short slice task scheduling

[Vincent Guittot]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 at 14:57, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 at 12:10, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 10:37:20AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 01:07:43PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> > >
> > > > > +static u64 eligible_vruntime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct sched_entity *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
> > > >
> > > > curr seems to be unused here and is NULL anyways when
> > > > set_protect_slice() is called ;-)
> > >
> > > Ah, but it is not with the flat patches on, which is why I was a little
> > > confused ;-)
> > >
> > > That said; I now see se == curr. So let me go have another look at all
> > > that.
> >
> > I might be slow -- it is definitely waay to warm already -- but I'm not
> > seeing how you don't want avg_vruntime() here.
>
> It is somehow related to avg_vruntime() except that I don't want the
> current avg_vruntime but the avg_vruntime when entity_key(se) will be
> null and se will become ineligible
>
> If I use current avg_vruntime(), once se will have run enough to get
> its vruntime == (now old) avg_vruntime, the new avg_vruntime will have
> move forward and the se's vruntime will  still be eligible

And I should name it ineligible_vruntime because of the +1

>
>
> >
> >