Re: [CFT][RFC] HT scheduler

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Rusty Russell wrote:

>In message <3FDAB517.4000309@cyberone.com.au> you write:
>
>>Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message <3FD9679A.1020404@cyberone.com.au> you write:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks for having a look Rusty. I'll try to convince you :)
>>>>
>
>Actually, having produced the patch, I've changed my mind.
>
>While it was spiritually rewarding to separate "struct runqueue" into
>the stuff which was to do with the runqueue, and the stuff which was
>per-cpu but there because it was convenient, I'm not sure the churn is
>worthwhile since we will want the rest of your stuff anyway.
>

OK nice, I haven't heard any other objections. I'll be trying to get
this included in 2.6, so if anyone doesn't like it please speak up.

>
>It (and lots of other things) might become worthwhile if single
>processors with HT become the de-facto standard.  For these, lots of
>our assumptions about CONFIG_SMP, such as the desirability of per-cpu
>data, become bogus.
>
>A few things need work:
>
>1) There's a race between sys_sched_setaffinity() and
>   sched_migrate_task() (this is nothing to do with your patch).
>

Yep. They should both take the task's runqueue lock.

>
>2) Please change those #defines into an enum for idle (patch follows,
>   untested but trivial)
>

Thanks, I'll take the patch.

>
>3) conditional locking in load_balance is v. bad idea.
>

Yeah... I'm thinking about this. I don't think it should be too hard
to break out the shared portion.

>
>4) load_balance returns "(!failed && !balanced)", but callers stop
>   calling it when it returns true.  Why not simply return "balanced",
>   or at least "balanced && !failed"?
>
>

No, the idle balancer stops calling it when it returns true, the periodic
balancer sets idle to 0 when it returns true.

!balanced && !failed means it has moved a task.

I'll either comment that, or return it in a more direct way.