* Re: sched: Am I missing something?
2009-09-21 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2009-09-21 23:53 ` Peter Williams
2009-09-23 14:36 ` Peter Williams
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Williams @ 2009-09-21 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Mike Galbraith, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On 21/09/09 23:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 23:22 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>> Or is the line:
>>
>> p->prio = effective_prio(p);
>>
>> in wake_up_new_task() an expensive no op.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from reading the code, it will always be the case
>> that EITHER rt_prio(p->prio) is true OR p->prio == p->normal_prio when
>> this call is made and, in either case, the value of p->prio will be
>> unchanged. In addition, when this call is made p->normal_prio is
>> already equal to to normal_prio(p), so the side effects of the function
>> (setting p->normal_prio) are also unnecessary.
>>
>> Am I correct or have I missed something?
>
> Yuck @ all that prio code..
>
> I think you're right, sched_fork() resets the prio, so poking at it in
> wake_up_new_task() seems superfluous.
After more thought, I also think it would be dangerous if it did
actually change the value from/to a real time priority to/from a non
real time priority as it runs the risk of leaving p with an
inappropriate sched_class if CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES is defined. It seems to
me that if CONFIG_RT_MUTEXES is defined then any changes to a task's
prio field needs to be accompanied by code to ensure the task has the
correct sched_class value as well.
>
> I've been meaning to re-write most of the PI code one of these days, but
> so far I've not had time to.
>
> My initial goal is to replace plist with a rb-tree and fix some of the
> boost paths to be inside the scheduler. That is, we currently have the
> fun situation that we boost a lock owner, which becomes runnable, gets
> pushed to another cpu, then current blocks and reschedules, leaving this
> cpu to again sort out work.
>
> It would be much easier if we'd first dequeue current, then boost and
> then select the owner. Saves a bit of bouncing around.
>
> The rb-tree is needed for things like PI on CFS (yes, you can do a form
> of PI on proportional schedulers), and we're going to look at doing a
> full sporadic task model deadline scheduler, which needs both deadline
> inheritance and bandwidth inheritance.
I think that the __normal_prio(), normal_prio() and effective_prio()
code are inefficient remnants of the old cpu scheduler that missed out
on being cleaned up during the switch to CFS. I think that they can be
cleaned up a bit independently of the changes to the PI code that you
mention. I'll look at it further and see if I can come up with a patch.
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: sched: Am I missing something?
2009-09-21 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-21 23:53 ` Peter Williams
@ 2009-09-23 14:36 ` Peter Williams
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Williams @ 2009-09-23 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Mike Galbraith, Linux Kernel Mailing List
On 21/09/09 23:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-21 at 23:22 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
>> Or is the line:
>>
>> p->prio = effective_prio(p);
>>
>> in wake_up_new_task() an expensive no op.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from reading the code, it will always be the case
>> that EITHER rt_prio(p->prio) is true OR p->prio == p->normal_prio when
>> this call is made and, in either case, the value of p->prio will be
>> unchanged. In addition, when this call is made p->normal_prio is
>> already equal to to normal_prio(p), so the side effects of the function
>> (setting p->normal_prio) are also unnecessary.
The recent sched_reset_on_fork changes to sched_fork() invalidate my
statement (above) about p->normal_prio as they do not set it to the
correct value (in all cases). But it now means that the only useful
work done by the above line in wake_up_new_task() is the side effect of
setting p->normal_prio. I think it would be better if it was set
properly in sched_fork(). I'll send a patch tomorrow.
>>
>> Am I correct or have I missed something?
>
> Yuck @ all that prio code..
>
> I think you're right, sched_fork() resets the prio, so poking at it in
> wake_up_new_task() seems superfluous.
>
> I've been meaning to re-write most of the PI code one of these days, but
> so far I've not had time to.
>
> My initial goal is to replace plist with a rb-tree and fix some of the
> boost paths to be inside the scheduler. That is, we currently have the
> fun situation that we boost a lock owner, which becomes runnable, gets
> pushed to another cpu, then current blocks and reschedules, leaving this
> cpu to again sort out work.
>
> It would be much easier if we'd first dequeue current, then boost and
> then select the owner. Saves a bit of bouncing around.
>
> The rb-tree is needed for things like PI on CFS (yes, you can do a form
> of PI on proportional schedulers), and we're going to look at doing a
> full sporadic task model deadline scheduler, which needs both deadline
> inheritance and bandwidth inheritance.
Peter
--
Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread