From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix PI handling vs sched_setscheduler()
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:24:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160120102425.GI6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160120100839.GL8573@e106622-lin>
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 10:08:39AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 19/01/16 12:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -4097,15 +4099,14 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct t
> > if (running)
> > p->sched_class->set_curr_task(rq);
> > if (queued) {
> > - int enqueue_flags = ENQUEUE_RESTORE;
> > /*
> > * We enqueue to tail when the priority of a task is
> > * increased (user space view).
> > */
> > - if (oldprio <= p->prio)
> > - enqueue_flags |= ENQUEUE_HEAD;
> > + if (oldprio < p->prio)
> > + queue_flags |= ENQUEUE_HEAD;
>
> Was this condition broken before or it needs to be changed now with this
> patch?
I could not see how we could get there before, seeing how the == case is
handled above.
> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > @@ -1130,18 +1130,35 @@ static inline void finish_lock_switch(st
> > extern const int sched_prio_to_weight[40];
> > extern const u32 sched_prio_to_wmult[40];
> >
> > +/*
> > + * {de,en}queue flags:
> > + *
> > + * SAVE/RESTORE - an otherwise spurious dequeue/enqueue, done to ensure tasks
> > + * are in a known state which allows modification. Such pairs
> > + * should preserve as much state as possible.
> > + *
> > + * MOVE - paired with SAVE/RESTORE, explicitly does not preserve the location
> > + * in the runqueue.
> > + *
> > + * ENQUEUE_HEAD - place at front of runqueue (tail if not specificed)
> > + *
> > + */
>
> Do we want to document all the flags while we are at it? :)
Probably.. does the below work? I think I bailed on replenish because I
could not come up with a coherent short description, does the below make
any sense?
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1140,7 +1140,9 @@ extern const u32 sched_prio_to_wmult[40]
* MOVE - paired with SAVE/RESTORE, explicitly does not preserve the location
* in the runqueue.
*
- * ENQUEUE_HEAD - place at front of runqueue (tail if not specificed)
+ * ENQUEUE_HEAD - place at front of runqueue (tail if not specificed)
+ * ENQUEUE_REPLENISH - push the CBS slot forward
+ * ENQUEUE_WAKING - sched_class::task_waking was called
*
*/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-20 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-19 11:18 Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-20 10:08 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-20 10:24 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-01-20 10:34 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-20 11:19 ` 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=20160120102425.GI6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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
Powered by JetHome