From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/rt: Document why has_pushable_tasks() isn't called with a runqueue lock
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:48:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170228164856.3d2e81bd@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
From: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
While reviewing the RT scheduling IPI logic, I was thinking that it was
a bug that has_pushable_tasks(rq) was not called under the runqueue
lock. But then I realized that there isn't a case where a race would
cause a problem, as to update has_pushable_tasks() would trigger a
push_rt_task() call from the CPU doing the update.
This subtle logic deserves a comment.
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@goodmis.org>
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 4101f9d..f39449b 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -1976,6 +1976,16 @@ static void try_to_push_tasks(void *arg)
src_rq = rq_of_rt_rq(rt_rq);
again:
+ /*
+ * Normally, has_pushable_tasks() would be performed within the
+ * runqueue lock being held. But if it was not set when entering
+ * this hard interrupt handler function, then to have it set would
+ * require a wake up. A wake up of an RT task will either cause a
+ * schedule if the woken task is higher priority than the running
+ * task, or it would try to do a push from the CPU doing the wake
+ * up. Grabbing the runqueue lock in such a case would more likely
+ * just cause unnecessary contention.
+ */
if (has_pushable_tasks(rq)) {
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
push_rt_task(rq);
next reply other threads:[~2017-02-28 23:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-28 21:48 Steven Rostedt [this message]
2017-03-01 8:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-02 20:38 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20170228164856.3d2e81bd@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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®