[lkml]   [2001]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.021 / U:38.576 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site