tree 70d0576dfebdd0207093372b70115776f03bc16e
parent 45beca08dd8b6d6a65c5ffd730af2eac7a2c7a03
author Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> 1225458221 -0500
committer Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 1225708140 +0100

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 <sivanich@sgi.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

--

 kernel/sched_rt.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)