Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Thu, 21 Dec 2023 17:16:38 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: move access of avg_rt and avg_dl into existing helper functions |
| |
Hi Shrikanth,
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 at 15:49, Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/20/23 7:29 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > Hi Vincent, thanks for taking a look. > > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 at 07:55, Shrikanth Hegde > > <sshegde@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > >>
[...]
> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SCHED_AVG_IRQ > >> - if (READ_ONCE(rq->avg_irq.util_avg)) > >> + if (cpu_util_irq(rq)) > > > > cpu_util_irq doesn't call READ_ONCE() > > > > > I see. Actually it would be right if cpu_util_irq does call READ_ONCE no?
Yes, cpu_util_irq should call READ_ONCE()
> > Sorry i havent yet understood the memory barriers in details. Please correct me > if i am wrong here, > since ___update_load_avg(&rq->avg_irq, 1) does use WRITE_ONCE and reading out this > value using cpu_util_irq on a different CPU should use READ_ONCE no?
Yes
> > > > >> return true; > >> -#endif > >> > >> return false; > >> } > >> @@ -9481,8 +9479,8 @@ static unsigned long scale_rt_capacity(int cpu) > >> * avg_thermal.load_avg tracks thermal pressure and the weighted > >> * average uses the actual delta max capacity(load). > >> */ > >> - used = READ_ONCE(rq->avg_rt.util_avg); > >> - used += READ_ONCE(rq->avg_dl.util_avg); > >> + used = cpu_util_rt(rq); > >> + used += cpu_util_dl(rq); > >> used += thermal_load_avg(rq); > >> > >> if (unlikely(used >= max)) > >> -- > >> 2.39.3 > >>
| |