From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
To: "Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@novell.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/8] track highest prio queued on runqueue
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 20:14:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b647ffbd0710201114g7fb37652r1e28dddbc7e879f4@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071019184336.349767581@goodmis.org>
On 19/10/2007, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
===================================================================
> --- linux-test.git.orig/kernel/sched.c 2007-10-19 12:33:09.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-test.git/kernel/sched.c 2007-10-19 12:34:32.000000000 -0400
> @@ -324,6 +324,8 @@ struct rq {
> int push_cpu;
> /* cpu of this runqueue: */
> int cpu;
> + /* highest queued rt task prio */
> + int highest_prio;
again, could it be moved to 'struct rt_rq' ?
(so we want to cache it as we don't want to trash more per-cpu bytes
calling smth like
if (!rt_nr_running) sched_find_first_bit() from other CPUs)
> @@ -972,6 +974,8 @@ static void activate_task(struct rq *rq,
>
> enqueue_task(rq, p, wakeup);
> inc_nr_running(p, rq);
> +
> + rq_prio_add_task(rq, p);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -984,6 +988,8 @@ static void deactivate_task(struct rq *r
>
> dequeue_task(rq, p, sleep);
> dec_nr_running(p, rq);
> +
> + rq_prio_remove_task(rq, p);
> }
{enqueue,dequeue}_task_rt() would be more appropriate places.
> +static inline void rq_prio_add_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + if (unlikely(rt_task(p)) && p->prio < rq->highest_prio)
> + rq->highest_prio = p->prio;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rq_prio_remove_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct rt_prio_array *array;
> +
> + if (unlikely(rt_task(p))) {
> + if (rq->rt_nr_running) {
> + if (p->prio >= rq->highest_prio) {
> + /* recalculate */
> + array = &rq->rt.active;
> + rq->highest_prio =
> + sched_find_first_bit(array->bitmap);
> + } /* otherwise leave rq->highest prio alone */
> + } else
> + rq->highest_prio = MAX_RT_PRIO;
> + }
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
> +
(just a few thoughts)
we call sched_find_first_bit() in pick_next_task_rt() in the case when
rt_nr_running != 0.
So if we can tolerate the 'latency' of updating the 'highest_prio' ==
the interval of time between deactivate_task() and pick_next_task() in
schedule() then rq_prio_remove_task() would just need to do a single
thing:
/* No more RT tasks: */
if (!rt_nr_running)
highest_prio = MAX_RT_PRIO;
and then,
static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_rt(struct rq *rq)
{
struct rt_prio_array *array = &rq->rt.active;
struct task_struct *next;
struct list_head *queue;
int idx;
- idx = sched_find_first_bit(array->bitmap);
+ rq->highest_prio = idx = sched_find_first_bit(array->bitmap);
[ ... ]
additionally, if we can tolerate the 'latency' (of updating
highest_prio) == the worst case scheduling latency, then
rq_prio_add_task() is not necessary at all.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-20 18:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-19 18:42 [patch 0/8] New RT Task Balancing Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:42 ` [patch 1/8] Add rt_nr_running accounting Steven Rostedt
2007-10-20 16:45 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2007-10-21 2:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:42 ` [patch 2/8] track highest prio queued on runqueue Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 19:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 19:45 ` Gregory Haskins
2007-10-19 19:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-20 18:14 ` Dmitry Adamushko [this message]
2007-10-21 2:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:42 ` [patch 3/8] push RT tasks Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:42 ` [patch 4/8] RT overloaded runqueues accounting Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:42 ` [patch 5/8] Move prototypes together Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:43 ` [patch 6/8] pull RT tasks Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 19:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-19 19:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-19 19:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-21 9:35 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2007-10-22 13:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-21 11:59 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2007-10-22 14:05 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-22 22:34 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2007-10-23 1:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:43 ` [patch 7/8] wake up balance RT Steven Rostedt
2007-10-19 18:43 ` [patch 8/8] disable CFS RT load balancing 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=b647ffbd0710201114g7fb37652r1e28dddbc7e879f4@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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®