From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758142AbbE3QbA (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2015 12:31:00 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0229.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.229]:50904 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755351AbbE3Qaw (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 May 2015 12:30:52 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1538:1593:1594:1711:1714:1730:1747:1777:1792:2194:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3351:3622:3865:3867:3868:3870:3873:3874:4250:4321:5007:6119:6261:7875:7903:9108:10004:10400:10848:10967:11026:11232:11658:11914:12517:12519:12740:13069:13255:13311:13357:21080,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0 X-HE-Tag: frogs55_4188f14c7625b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1785 Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 12:30:49 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: pang.xunlei@zte.com.cn, Juri Lelli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Xunlei Pang , Xunlei Pang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] sched/rt: Check to push the task away after its affinity was changed Message-ID: <20150530123049.21ed5168@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1432983263.11346.15.camel@twins> References: <1431442004-18716-1-git-send-email-xlpang@126.com> <20150529131626.GK19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150530082035.GL19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1432983263.11346.15.camel@twins> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:54:23 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 10:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Makes me like the thing even less though.. > > Steven, why do we normally push on schedule()? Would not the natural > location be where we add to pushable_tasks? > > Which would be here in set_cpus_allowed() and wakeups. schedule() seems > like a second best location. What about when an RT task gets preempted by a higher prio task. We may need to push the preempted one. You can't do that at wakeup. -- Steve