From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration instead of pulling
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:21:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150205152144.GM21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150204143906.742287b4@gandalf.local.home>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:39:06PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The problem is that if you have 100 CPUs having an RT task schedule out
> (just like cyclictest -d0 -t -i100 does a lot), and if there's one rq
> that has more than one RT task scheduled on it (overloaded), each
> of those 100 CPUs are going to try to get that second RT task on that
> lonely rq, and each of those 100 CPUs are going to take that lonely
> rq's lock! Then what happens if the task running on that rq wants to
> schedule? Well, it needs to wait behind 100 CPUs contending for its rq
> lock, and we see a HUGE latency (1ms or more).
>
> What does this patch do instead? Instead of trying to fight for the rq,
> if it sees that there's an overloaded rq, it simply sends an IPI to
> that CPU to have it push the overloaded RT task off to another CPU.
So can't we flip the problem around; 99 overloaded cpus and 1 going
'low', then we IPI the 99, and they're all going to try and push their
tasks on the one (now) sad cpu?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-05 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-04 19:39 Steven Rostedt
2015-02-05 14:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-05 16:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-02-06 12:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-06 15:58 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-02-05 15:21 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-02-05 16:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-02-06 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-06 13:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20150205152144.GM21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=williams@redhat.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
Powered by JetHome