From e113a745f693af196c8081b328bf42def086989b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dimitri Sivanich Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:03:41 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] sched/rt: small optimization to update_curr_rt() Impact: micro-optimization to SCHED_FIFO/RR scheduling A very minor improvement, but might it be better to check sched_rt_runtime(rt_rq) before taking the rt_runtime_lock? Peter Zijlstra observes: > Yes, I think its ok to do so. > > Like pointed out in the other thread, there are two races: > > - sched_rt_runtime() going to RUNTIME_INF, and that will be handled > properly by sched_rt_runtime_exceeded() > > - sched_rt_runtime() going to !RUNTIME_INF, and here we can miss an > accounting cycle, but I don't think that is something to worry too > much about. Signed-off-by: Dimitri Sivanich Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar -- kernel/sched_rt.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- kernel/sched_rt.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c index d9ba9d5f99d..c7963d5d062 100644 --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c @@ -537,13 +537,13 @@ static void update_curr_rt(struct rq *rq) for_each_sched_rt_entity(rt_se) { rt_rq = rt_rq_of_se(rt_se); - spin_lock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); if (sched_rt_runtime(rt_rq) != RUNTIME_INF) { + spin_lock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); rt_rq->rt_time += delta_exec; if (sched_rt_runtime_exceeded(rt_rq)) resched_task(curr); + spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); } - spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); } } -- 2.11.4.GIT