lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Remove WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature check in entity_tick
From
Date
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 15:03 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 02:49:40PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 14:21 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 05:43:23PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > > > Currently, entity_tick calls check_preempt_tick if WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature is
> > > > disabled. That's wrong. It should do that if the feature is enabled.
> > >
> > > Why is it wrong?
> > > check_preempt_wakeup() is used for wakeup.
> >
> > I guess you mean "check_preempt_tick" here, yes?
>
> check_preempt_wakeup() excactly.
> try_to_wake_up()
> check_preempt_curr()
> sched_fair->check_preempt_wakeup() <========== [1]
>
> >
> > in entity_tick(...):
> > if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1 || !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
> > check_preempt_tick(cfs_rq, curr);
> >
> > Note that, above "if" statement says "if WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature is
> > *disabled* then calls check_preempt_tick".
>
> Yeah, if !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT) [1] will just return;
> thus new waked task will wait until the next tick to schedule.
>
> >
> > Shouldn't it be "if WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature is *enabled* then ...."?
>
> So no IMHO.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And actually the check is duplicate because check_preempt_tick will do
> > > > that. So just remove it from entity_tick.
> > >
> > > It's not exactly duplicated. entity_tick() will resched_task(*p)
> > > if p's slice is over. So if there is an following wakeup(say X),
> > > then there is an opportunity for X to schedule quickly.
> >
> > Understood this.
> >
> > But what I mean is both "entity_tick" and "check_preempt_tick" check
> > WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature. That's duplicated.
> >
> > Only need to check it in "check_preempt_tick".
>
> I think we need that check(!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)) in entity_tick()
> to give new waked task better opportunity.

Thanks for your explanation.

From another point of view, below !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT) still
looks like duplicated.

if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1 || !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
check_preempt_tick(cfs_rq, curr);

if "!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)" is run,
that implies cfs_rq->nr_running == 1.

Why do we need to call check_preempt_tick when there is only 1 task
runnable?

Thanks,
Lin Ming




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-29 09:39    [W:0.073 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site