From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0] sched: change how run-queue is selected for RT task
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 09:31:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1306243872.1465.55.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimF2d93VVGKHDdFTn=V-1h9nWrs_w@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 23:28 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> When selecting run-queue for a given RT task, we have to take a few
> factors, such as task priority and CPU cache affinity, into
> consideration. In this work, a simpler method is proposed, which is
> focusing on the relation between the current run-queue of the given
> task and the given run-queue.
>
> If the current run-queue of task is the given run-queue, the run-queue
> of task keeps unchanged, so the CPU cache affinities of both task and
> the current task of run-queue remain unchanged. Then there are at
> least two tasks competing one CPU, and in the worst case that both
> competitors are RT tasks the victim will be selected and processed by
> pusher later.
>
> On other hand, if the current run-queue of task is different from the
> given run-queue, task is simply delivered to its current run-queue,
> since pusher is always willing to do hard works.
>
> In summary, the burden of RT task is always processed first by the
> pusher of its current run-queue.
Why? Why should we preempt a high prio task to make it push off a task
that has just woken up on its CPU? If we know that we are about to
preempt a high prio RT task, why interrupt it, when we could simply make
this task wake up on another CPU?
-- Steve
>
> Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>
> ---
>
> --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c 2011-04-27 11:48:50.000000000 +0800
> +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c 2011-05-21 22:19:52.000000000 +0800
> @@ -998,14 +998,12 @@ select_task_rq_rt(struct rq *rq, struct
> *
> * For equal prio tasks, we just let the scheduler sort it out.
> */
> - if (unlikely(rt_task(rq->curr)) &&
> - (rq->curr->rt.nr_cpus_allowed < 2 ||
> - rq->curr->prio < p->prio) &&
> - (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)) {
> - int cpu = find_lowest_rq(p);
>
> - return (cpu == -1) ? task_cpu(p) : cpu;
> - }
> + if (task_cpu(p) == rq->cpu)
> + return rq->cpu;
> +
> + if (likely(!rt_task(rq->curr)))
> + return rq->cpu;
>
> /*
> * Otherwise, just let it ride on the affined RQ and the
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-24 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-21 15:28 Hillf Danton
2011-05-22 11:53 ` Hillf Danton
2011-05-24 13:31 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2011-05-24 13:48 ` Hillf Danton
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=1306243872.1465.55.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=yong.zhang0@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®