lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: runqueue locks in schedule()
Date
On Friday 18 January 2008 17:33, stephane eranian wrote:
> Nick,

> > It is arch specific. If an architecture wants interrupts on during
> > context switch, or runqueue unlocked, then they set it (btw
> > INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW also implies UNLOCKED_CTXSW).
>
> Yes , I noticed that. I am only interested in UNLOCKED_CTXSW.
> But it appears that the approach suggested my Peter does work. We are
> running some tests.

OK, that might be OK.


> > Although, eg on x86, you would hold off interrupts and runqueue lock for
> > slightly less time if you defined those, it results in _slightly_ more
> > complicated context switching... although I did once find a workload
> > where the reduced runqueue contention improved throughput a bit, it is
> > not much problem in general to hold the lock.
>
> By complicated you mean that now you'd have to make sure you don't
> need to access runqueue data?

Well, not speaking about the arch-specific code (which may involve
more complexities), but the core scheduler needs the
task_struct->oncpu variable wheras that isn't required if the
runqueue is locked while switching tasks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-18 09:31    [W:0.043 / U:7.460 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site