From: Mike Kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -rt] Priority preemption latency
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:12:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060612201245.GA16771@w-mikek2.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060611073609.GA12456@elte.hu>
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:36:09AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> ok - could you try the patch from today (re-attached below)? Maybe that
> theoretical scenario i mentioned is only theoretical in theory ;-)
Thanks for the patch!
I just started looking at the RT scheduling code and am trying to
get a good understanding of what is happening.
In the case where the task on the current CPU can not be preempted,
we send IPIs to all other CPUs and they end up running the
balance_rt_tasks() routine to try and schedule the task. Is
that correct? If the newly awakened task can preempt more than one
currently running RT task, then is it possible for tasks to 'bounce
around' a bit before we end up running the top N priority RT tasks
(where N is the number of CPUs)?
In the case where the newly awakened task can preempt the task on the
current CPU, shouldn't we also trigger reschedules on other CPUs?
Perhaps we do somewhere and I am missing it. I am thinking of the
case where the current CPU was running a RT task with lower priority
than the awakened task. But, another CPU is running an even lower
priority RT task. In this case, we really want the newly awakened task
to preempt the lower priority task on the remote CPU.
Thanks,
--
Mike
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-12 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-10 0:01 Darren Hart
2006-06-10 6:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-10 7:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-11 5:49 ` Darren Hart
2006-06-11 5:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-11 6:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-11 6:24 ` Darren Hart
2006-06-11 7:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-12 15:38 ` Darren Hart
2006-06-15 21:06 ` Mike Kravetz
2006-06-15 22:13 ` Darren Hart
2006-06-15 23:05 ` Esben Nielsen
2006-06-15 22:48 ` Mike Kravetz
2006-07-11 16:48 ` Mike Kravetz
2006-06-12 20:12 ` Mike Kravetz [this message]
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=20060612201245.GA16771@w-mikek2.ibm.com \
--to=kravetz@us.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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®