From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752459AbbCTO1l (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:27:41 -0400
Received: from smtprelay0093.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.93]:38992 "EHLO
	smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750764AbbCTO1h (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:27:37 -0400
X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267
X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1183:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2895:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3353:3622:3865:3866:3867:3870:3871:3872:3873:3874:5007:6119:6261:7875:7901:7903:7974:8531:10004:10226:10400:10848:10967:11026:11232:11658:11914:12043:12517:12519:12740:13069:13255:13311:13357:14096:14097:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0
X-HE-Tag: tank14_5f4bcf210021b
X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2333
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:27:33 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel <joern@purestorage.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration
 instead of pulling
Message-ID: <20150320102733.10316214@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20150320102542.GY23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20150318144946.2f3cc982@gandalf.local.home>
	<20150320102542.GY23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:25:42 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:49:46PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > +static int find_next_push_cpu(struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > +	struct rq *next_rq;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +
> > +	while (1) {
> 
> We typically tend to write: for (;;), instead, however would a do { }
> while () loop not make more sense here?

You know, I use to do "for (;;)" instead of "while (1)" because to me
"for (;;)" == "forever". But people have since convinced me that
"while (1)" is better. I don't really care so I just did the switch :-p


> 
> 	do {
> 		cpu = rto_next_cpu(rq);
> 		if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> 			break;
> 
> 		next_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> 	} while (next_rq->rt.highest_prio.next >= rq->rt.highest_prio.curr);

Ah, that does make sense. Not sure why I had it the way I did. I think
it had to do with the way I thought about the algorithm. I did it in
layers. As there were more than one break, I probably just figured to
do them explicitly.

Want me to send an updated patch?

-- Steve


> 
> > +	return cpu;
> > +}