lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 02:02:18PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 13-Dec 17:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:10:16PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > + if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 0) {
> > > + util_est = cfs_rq->util_est_runnable;
> > > + util_est -= task_util_est(p);
> > > + if (util_est < 0)
> > > + util_est = 0;
> > > + cfs_rq->util_est_runnable = util_est;
> > > + } else {
> >
> > I'm thinking that's an explicit load-store to avoid intermediate values
> > landing in cfs_rq->util_esp_runnable, right?
>
> Was mainly to have an unsigned util_est for the following "sub"...
>
>
> > That would need READ_ONCE() / WRITE_ONCE() I think, without that the
> > compiler is free to munge the lot together.
>
> ... do we still need the {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() in this case?
> I guess adding them however does not hurts.

I think the compiler is free to munge it into something like:

cfs_rq->util_est_runnable -= task_util_est();
if (cfs_rq->util_est_runnable < 0)
cfs_rq->util_est_runnable = 0

and its a fairly simple optimization at that, it just needs to observe
that util_est is an alias for cfs_rq->util_est_runnable.

Using the volatile load/store completely destroys that optimization
though, so yes, I'd say its definitely needed.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-15 15:08    [W:0.066 / U:33.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site