Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:54:43 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Avoid moving tasks when a schedule can be made. |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >>> Oh, I forgot: Ingo once introduced some code to bail early (though >>> for different reasons and under different conditions), and this >>> actually was found to cause significant regressions in some database >>> workloads. >> >> >> >> well, we both did changes with that effect - pretty much any change in >> this area can cause a regression on _some_ workload ;) So there wont >> be any silver bullet. >> > > Well yes. Although specifically the bail-out-early stuff which IIRC > you did... I wasn't singling you out in particular, I've broken the > scheduler at _least_ as much as you have since starting work on it ;) >
... and my point is that there is not much reason to introduce a possible performance regression because of such a latency in an artificial test case, especially when there are other sources of unbound latency when dealing with large numbers of tasks (and on uniprocessor too, eg. rwsem).
However, as an RT-tree thing obviously I have no problems with it, but unless your interrupt thread is preemptible, then there isn't much point because it can cause a similar latency (that your tools won't detect) simply by running multiple times.
You really want isolcpus on SMP machines to really ensure load balancing doesn't harm RT behaviour, yeah?
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |