Hello, Phil.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:53:27PM -0400, Phil Auld wrote:
> > A new BPF extensible sched_class will have callbacks that allow the BPF
> > scheduler to keep track of relevant task states (like priority and cpumask).
> > Those callbacks aren't called while a task is on a different sched_class.
> > When a task comes back, we wanna tell the BPF progs the up-to-date state
>
> "wanna" ? How about "want to"?
>
> That makes me wanna stop reading right there... :)
Sorry about that. Have been watching for it recently but this log was
written a while ago, so...
> > +/*
> > + * ->switching_to() is called with the pi_lock and rq_lock held and must not
> > + * mess with locking.
> > + */
> > +void check_class_changing(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
> > + const struct sched_class *prev_class)
> > +{
> > + if (prev_class != p->sched_class && p->sched_class->switching_to)
> > + p->sched_class->switching_to(rq, p);
> > +}
>
> Does this really need wrapper? The compiler may help but it doesn't seem to
> but you're doing a function call and passing in prev_class just to do a
> simple check. I guess it's not really a fast path. Just seemed like overkill.
This doesn't really matter either way but wouldn't it look weird if it's not
symmetric with check_class_changed()?
Thanks.
--
tejun
