Re: [PATCH] consolidate task preempts

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Tue Nov 02 2004 - 07:28:10 EST


Con Kolivas wrote:
consolidate task preempts



------------------------------------------------------------------------

TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR is only used when followed by resched_task. Consolidate
the two into a single function.


I don't like the name.

I actually don't mind the code as it is now; it looks like it gets harder
to read, especially with that name.

Also, I think you might be better off to leave it inline, as it is just
a single comparison.

Allow tasks of equal dynamic priority to preempt tasks of lower static
priority.


Although this change makes the condition more complex. Is it really worth
doing?

Signed-off-by: Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Index: linux-2.6.10-rc1-mm2/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.10-rc1-mm2.orig/kernel/sched.c 2004-11-02 14:19:32.973509317 +1100
+++ linux-2.6.10-rc1-mm2/kernel/sched.c 2004-11-02 14:26:23.444588405 +1100
@@ -157,9 +157,6 @@
(JIFFIES_TO_NS(MAX_SLEEP_AVG * \
(MAX_BONUS / 2 + DELTA((p)) + 1) / MAX_BONUS - 1))
-#define TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, rq) \
- ((p)->prio < (rq)->curr->prio)
-
/*
* task_timeslice() scales user-nice values [ -20 ... 0 ... 19 ]
* to time slice values: [800ms ... 100ms ... 5ms]
@@ -810,6 +807,13 @@ inline int task_curr(const task_t *p)
return cpu_curr(task_cpu(p)) == p;
}
+static void preempt(task_t *p, runqueue_t *rq)
+{
+ if (p->prio < rq->curr->prio || (p->prio == rq->curr->prio &&
+ p->static_prio < rq->curr->static_prio))
+ resched_task(rq->curr);
+}
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
enum request_type {
REQ_MOVE_TASK,
@@ -1106,10 +1110,8 @@ out_activate:
* to be considered on this CPU.)
*/
activate_task(p, rq, cpu == this_cpu);
- if (!sync || cpu != this_cpu) {
- if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, rq))
- resched_task(rq->curr);
- }
+ if (!sync || cpu != this_cpu)
+ preempt(p, rq);
success = 1;
out_running:
@@ -1263,8 +1265,7 @@ void fastcall wake_up_new_task(task_t * p->timestamp = (p->timestamp - this_rq->timestamp_last_tick)
+ rq->timestamp_last_tick;
__activate_task(p, rq);
- if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, rq))
- resched_task(rq->curr);
+ preempt(p, rq);
schedstat_inc(rq, wunt_moved);
/*
@@ -1621,8 +1622,7 @@ void pull_task(runqueue_t *src_rq, prio_
* Note that idle threads have a prio of MAX_PRIO, for this test
* to be always true for them.
*/
- if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq))
- resched_task(this_rq->curr);
+ preempt(p, this_rq);
}
/*
@@ -3306,8 +3306,8 @@ recheck:
if (task_running(rq, p)) {
if (p->prio > oldprio)
resched_task(rq->curr);
- } else if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, rq))
- resched_task(rq->curr);
+ } else
+ preempt(p, rq);
}
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
out_unlock:
@@ -4008,8 +4008,7 @@ static void __migrate_task(struct task_s
+ rq_dest->timestamp_last_tick;
deactivate_task(p, rq_src);
activate_task(p, rq_dest, 0);
- if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, rq_dest))
- resched_task(rq_dest->curr);
+ preempt(p, rq_dest);
}
out:


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/