From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_rt: Removes extra checking for nr_cpus_allowed when calling find_lowest_rq
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:38:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1287491931.16971.358.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1287486167.1994.1.camel@twins>
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 13:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Remove the check for nr_cpus_allowed of an RT task before calling
> > find_lowest_cpu() from select_task_rq_rt function. Cause
> > find_lowest_cpu checks for rt.nr_cpus_allowed of a process.
> > It would've been nice, if we make the check before calling
> > find_lowest_cpu. But its called from other places, so keep the
> > nr_cpus_allowed check into find_lowest_cpu().
>
Yes it is redundant, but I'm wondering if we should modify
find_lowest_rq() just to short cut this case.
That is, instead of assigning all the variables on the stack, which I'm
thinking __get_cpu_var() may act like a barrier() where gcc can't
optimize. We should probably also do the following:
static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task)
{
struct sched_domain *sd;
- struct cpumask *lowest_mask = __get_cpu_var(local_cpu_mask);
- int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- int cpu = task_cpu(task);
+ struct cpumask *lowest_mask;
+ int this_cpu;
+ int cpu;
if (task->rt.nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
return -1; /* No other targets possible */
+ lowest_mask = __get_cpu_var(local_cpu_mask);
+ this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ cpu = task_cpu(task;
Then removing the redundant check may not hurt anything.
-- Steve
> > Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> > --- linus-rc8/kernel/sched_rt.c 2010-10-15 05:26:43.000000000 +0600
> > +++ rakib-rc8/kernel/sched_rt.c 2010-10-19 16:22:30.000000000 +0600
> > @@ -971,8 +971,7 @@ select_task_rq_rt(struct rq *rq, struct
> > * that is just being woken and probably will have
> > * cold cache anyway.
> > */
> > - if (unlikely(rt_task(rq->curr)) &&
> > - (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)) {
> > + if (unlikely(rt_task(rq->curr))) {
> > int cpu = find_lowest_rq(p);
> >
> > return (cpu == -1) ? task_cpu(p) : cpu;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-19 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-19 10:57 Rakib Mullick
2010-10-19 11:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-19 11:12 ` Rakib Mullick
2010-10-19 12:38 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2010-10-19 12:57 ` Gregory Haskins
2010-10-19 13:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-10-19 13:07 ` Gregory Haskins
2010-10-19 14:40 ` Rakib Mullick
2010-10-20 4:13 ` Rakib Mullick
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1287491931.16971.358.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rakib.mullick@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®