Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] nohz_full: Make sched_should_stop_tick() more conservative | From | Chris Metcalf <> | Date | Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:30:23 -0400 |
| |
On 4/21/2016 12:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:42:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> So I think that is indeed the right thing here. But looking at this >> function I think there's more problems with it. >> >> It seems to assume that if there's FIFO tasks, those will run. This is >> incorrect. The FIFO task can have a lower prio than an RR task, in which >> case the RR task will run. >> >> So the whole fifo_nr_running test seems misplaced, it should go after >> the rr_nr_running tests. That is, only if !rr_nr_running, can we use >> fifo_nr_running like this. > A little something like so perhaps; can anybody test?
Tested-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>
To be clear, I only tested that it fixed my original bug, where we weren't kicking a remote cpu when we should have been; I have not tested that it works properly in the presence of RR or FIFO scheduled tasks.
But this or something like it should definitely go into 4.6 before it's done.
-- Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies http://www.mellanox.com
| |