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=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT 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 187A6C282CE for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 20:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4F62175B for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 20:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=digitalocean.com header.i=@digitalocean.com header.b="Hhz6FxNy" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731834AbfDXUnx (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:43:53 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-f196.google.com ([209.85.166.196]:53356 "EHLO mail-it1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731232AbfDXUnx (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 16:43:53 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z4so4559434itc.3 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:43:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=digitalocean.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to; bh=yb4ofAvzRW76AntrL5s5EiMl5Z+vN1wmoWlh3oNHFRM=; b=Hhz6FxNyI06J7v9l5rjT7CMfbCHlEbHhhorXRBrqy7kbsfgraOayDkAwkLV/ryIOah ZnwjzM1KADAkWrOltsHVqBi64bMQ5gja1MC3awFHi1Z48zLw8lWRMu41+zHf007h34Yh nsXOrDV3p0ZlHZVy+fx03uOOX0R6KPAVNq/PM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to; bh=yb4ofAvzRW76AntrL5s5EiMl5Z+vN1wmoWlh3oNHFRM=; b=P839KQ3y26WB/FUSB+UmDBWp1FwEpOj0ciAWOA98CH2LdBiFCNduEZg5CAYeMyWXrc NzTlV2x74Diixbvw+8yCmCaJz813JMKZ7i6+kbnyRY4+TQToNuOFWE+34Rp+afUKkBhd y+fxvAztVMtGeIekvxloQahbiUWQBTRadDa+bV3EczE1PUg94jL04Vy10Cr5JF6yX1KR einySezGyxUTh1zutaZ0nsitJwOqkxLa0bnwjcR8vyffe8cPwhjvOoux3nIzu5FwJiY0 QQY5RRMcbDSW6qtGHos4+LhgfjYUrFu77UVvnnM5jwQ5vc48iZf6bonlahYeuPpWMA9M CmJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX6Miuf0A1IqwpVQhw7jlmazeeRQqGHbIQTf3FSuV1848yJE22U ZvJ+BDeN3P2Kt1HXCBQkune1RA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzV3ZYRf5O7yP2fShhZqBHDgrhLnVBBkuHOVLBUnkIDlE3Sp8KqKUq8kw538bJzdLwFu1IrXQ== X-Received: by 2002:a24:1f06:: with SMTP id d6mr812525itd.11.1556138631935; Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from swap-tester ([178.128.225.14]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z141sm8533240itb.7.2019.04.24.13.43.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:43:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai To: Tim Chen Cc: Vineeth Remanan Pillai , Nishanth Aravamudan , Julien Desfossez , Peter Zijlstra , Aubrey Li , mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, pjt@google.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, keescook@chromium.org, kerrnel@google.com, Aaron Lu , Valentin Schneider , Mel Gorman , Pawan Gupta , Paolo Bonzini , Phil Auld Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/17] sched: Basic tracking of matching tasks Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 20:43:36 +0000 Message-Id: <20190424204337.22283-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 In-Reply-To: <54772e18-2f70-34cc-29ef-b9291f4846e2@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > A minor nitpick. I find keeping the vruntime base readjustment in > core_prio_less probably is more straight forward rather than pass a > core_cmp bool around. The reason I moved the vruntime base adjustment to __prio_less is because, the vruntime seemed alien to __prio_less when looked as a standalone function. I do not have a strong opinion on both. Probably a better approach would be to replace both cpu_prio_less/core_prio_less with prio_less which takes the third arguement 'bool on_same_rq'? Thanks