From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: Am I missing something?
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:36:41 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ABA3279.3050703@bigpond.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1253541183.8439.168.camel@twins>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-23 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-21 13:22 Peter Williams
2009-09-21 13:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-21 23:53 ` Peter Williams
2009-09-23 14:36 ` Peter Williams [this message]
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=4ABA3279.3050703@bigpond.net.au \
--to=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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®