lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CPU affinity & IPI latency
On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 03:43:05PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> - Define a new field in the task structure 'saved_cpus_allowed'.
> With a little collapsing of existing fields, there is room to put
> this on the same cache line as 'cpus_allowed'.
> - In reschedule_idle() if we determine that the best CPU for a task
> is the CPU it is associated with (p->processor), then temporarily
> bind the task to that CPU. The task is temporarily bound to the
> CPU by overwriting the 'cpus_allowed' field such that the task can
> only be scheduled on the target CPU. Of course, the original
> value of 'cpus_allowed' is saved in 'saved_cpus_allowed'.
> - In schedule(), the loop which examines all tasks on the runqueue
> will restore the value of 'cpus_allowed'.

This sounds racy, at least with your simple description. Even other CPUs
could walk their run queue while the IPI is being processed and reset the
cpus_allowed flag too early. I guess it would need a check in the
schedule loop that restores cpus_allowed that the current CPU is the only
on set in that task's cpus_allowed. This unfortunately would hang the
process if the CPU for some reason cannot process schedules timely, so
it may be needed to add a timestamp also to the task_struct that allows
the restoration of cpus_allowed even from non target CPUs after some
time.


-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.100 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site