From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755485Ab1G2IcG (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:32:06 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:27197 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754681Ab1G2IcE (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:32:04 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,286,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="33691782" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Kill WAKEUP_PREEMPT From: Lin Ming To: Yong Zhang Cc: Peter Zijlstra , "mingo@elte.hu" , lkml , Mike Galbraith In-Reply-To: <1311928237.3938.1588.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> References: <1311846203.3938.1555.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> <20110729062158.GA8971@zhy> <1311922180.3938.1573.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> <20110729070356.GA10420@zhy> <1311924975.3938.1583.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> <20110729074635.GB10420@zhy> <1311926218.5890.215.camel@twins> <20110729082033.GB12106@zhy> <1311928237.3938.1588.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:32:02 +0800 Message-ID: <1311928322.3938.1589.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:30 +0800, Lin Ming wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:20 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 09:56:58AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > I've queued Lin's patch as I don't see the point of this thing either, > > > normally WAKEUP_PREEMPT is enabled so it says || 0 which is kinda > > > useless :-) > > > > > > And I'm starting to think we should just kill all of WAKEUP_PREEMPT I > > > don't think we ever want to disable it anyway.. > > > > Someting like this? > > > > --- > > From: Yong Zhang > > Subject: [RFC PATCH] sched: Kill WAKEUP_PREEMPT > > > > Per Peter Zijlstra: > > > And I'm starting to think we should just kill all of WAKEUP_PREEMPT I > > > don't think we ever want to disable it anyway.. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang > > --- > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 8 +------- > > kernel/sched_features.h | 5 ----- > > 2 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c > > index 46b7855..3c58042 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c > > @@ -1114,9 +1114,6 @@ check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr) > > * narrow margin doesn't have to wait for a full slice. > > * This also mitigates buddy induced latencies under load. > > */ > > - if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)) > > - return; > > - > > - /* > - * Ensure that a task that missed wakeup preemption by a > - * narrow margin doesn't have to wait for a full slice. > - * This also mitigates buddy induced latencies under load. > - */ > - if (!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)) > - return; > - > > Then remove the comments also. Sorry, don't remove that comments.