mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
Cc: <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:09:59 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181005120959.6b8649e2@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201810060003580936940@zte.com.cn>

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 00:03:58 +0800 (CST)
<peng.hao2@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> >Hi Peng,  
> 
> >On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 06:22:11AM +0800, Peng Hao wrote:  
> >> find_lock_lowest_rq may or not releease rq lock when return
> >> lowest_rq=NULL, but it is fuzzy.
> >> If not releasing rq lock, it is unnecessary to re-call
> >> pick_next_pushable_task.  
> 
> >IIRC, deadline.c uses a similar pattern (c.f., find_lock_later_rq() and
> >pick_next_pushable_dl_task()): should it be considered for this change?  
> peterz asked the same question.
> at first I thought dl's retry action is simple. But now  the change is simpler, I will
> add it. 
>

I would still do that as a separate patch though.

-- Steve

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-10-05 16:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-10-05 22:22 Peng Hao
2018-10-05 14:26 ` Steven Rostedt
2018-10-05 15:46 ` Andrea Parri
     [not found]   ` <201810060003580936940@zte.com.cn>
2018-10-05 16:09     ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2018-10-15  9:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-10-15 15:42   ` Steven Rostedt
     [not found]     ` <201810160009439217654@zte.com.cn>
2018-10-15 17:20       ` Steven Rostedt
2018-10-16 12:35     ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181005120959.6b8649e2@gandalf.local.home \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peng.hao2@zte.com.cn \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®