minor improvement to pick_next_highest_task_rt ?

From: Michael J. Wang
Date: Thu Mar 15 2012 - 21:23:12 EST


Hi RT Scheduler experts,

I was studying pick_next_highest_task_rt() and was wondering if this is a valid improvement:

--- rt.c-3.3-rc7 2012-03-15 17:53:27.774190199 -0700
+++ rt.c 2012-03-15 17:53:44.541979403 -0700
@@ -1403,7 +1403,7 @@
next_idx:
if (idx >= MAX_RT_PRIO)
continue;
- if (next && next->prio < idx)
+ if (next && next->prio <= idx)
continue;
list_for_each_entry(rt_se, array->queue + idx, run_list) {
struct task_struct *p;


My reasoning is: if next is not NULL, then we have found a candidate task, and its priority is next->prio. Now we are looking for an even higher priority task in the other rt_rq's. idx is the highest priority in the current candidate rt_rq. In the current 3.3-rc7 code, if idx is equal to next->prio, we would start scanning the tasks in that rt_rq and replace the current candidate task with a task from that rt_rq. But the new task would only have a priority that is equal to our previous candidate task, so we have not advanced our goal of finding a higher prio task. So shouldn't we just skip that rt_rq if next->prio is less than *or equal to* idx ?

I know this is just a minor improvement and probably results in no measurable performance gain. But it just seems more correct this way. (Or if it is not correct, maybe I'll learn something :-)

I do not subscribe to the LKML (but I have read the FAQ), so I would appreciate it if you can cc me on your responses.

Thanks,
Michael


--
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/