lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 6/8] pull RT tasks
On 19/10/2007, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> [ ... ]
>
> @@ -2927,6 +2927,13 @@ static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, s
> int pulled_task = -1;
> unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
>
> + /*
> + * pull_rt_task returns true if the run queue changed.
> + * But this does not mean we have a task to run.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(pull_rt_task(this_rq)) && this_rq->nr_running)
> + return;
> +
> for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
> unsigned long interval;
>
> @@ -3614,6 +3621,7 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
> if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
> idle_balance(cpu, rq);
>
> + schedule_balance_rt(rq, prev);

we do pull_rt_task() in idle_balance() so, I think, there is no need
to do it twice.
i.e.
if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
idle_balance(cpu, rq);
+ else
+ schedule_balance_rt(rq, prev);

hum?

moreover (continuing my previous idea on "don't pull more than 1 task
at once"), I wonder whether you really see cases when more than 1 task
have been successfully _pushed_ over to other run-queues at once...

I'd expect the push/pull algorithm to naturally avoid such a
possibility. Let's say we have a few RT tasks on our run-queue that
are currently runnable (but not running)... the question is 'why do
they still here?'

(1) because the previous attempt to _push_ them failed;
(2) because they were not _pulled_ from other run-queues.

both cases should mean that other run-queues have tasks with higher
prios running at the moment.

yes, there is a tiny window in schedule() between deactivate_task() [
which can make this run-queue to look like we can push over to it ]
and idle_balance() -> pull_rt_task() _or_ schedule_balance_rt() ->
pull_rt_task() [ where this run-queue will try to pull tasks on its
own ]

_but_ the run-queue is locked in this case so we wait in
double_lock_balance() (from push_rt_task()) and run into the
competition with 'src_rq' (which is currently in the 'tiny window' as
described above trying to run pull_rt_task()) for getting both self_rq
and src_rq locks...

this way, push_rt_task() always knows the task to be pushed (so it can
be a bit optimized) --- as it's either a newly woken up RT task with
(p->prio > rq->curr->prio) _or_ a preempted RT task (so we know 'task'
for both cases).

To sum it up, I think that the pull/push algorithm should be able to
naturally accomplish the proper job pushing/pulling 1 task at once (as
described above)... any additional actions are just overhead or there
is some problem with the algorithm (ah well, or with my understanding
:-/ )


--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
-
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: 2007-10-21 14:03    [W:0.112 / U:4.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site