From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A45C65BA7 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 16:10:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488E3213A2 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 16:10:05 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 488E3213A2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728723AbeJEXJY (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:09:24 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:48740 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727572AbeJEXJX (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:09:23 -0400 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-56-78.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.56.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 75D8A208E7; Fri, 5 Oct 2018 16:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 12:09:59 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Cc: , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info Message-ID: <20181005120959.6b8649e2@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <201810060003580936940@zte.com.cn> References: <20181005154632.GA18077@andrea> <201810060003580936940@zte.com.cn> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; 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 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 00:03:58 +0800 (CST) 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