lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] RT: Add priority-queuing and priority-inheritance to workqueue infrastructure
From
Date
On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 01:34 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/01, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 00:50 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 08/01, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's translating priorities through the work queues, which doesn't seem
> > > > to happen with the current implementation. A high priority, say
> > > > SCHED_FIFO priority 99, task may have to wait for a nice -5 work queue
> > > > to finish..
> > >
> > > Why should that task wait?
> >
> > I assume "that task" = the RT99 task? If so, that is precisely the
> > question. It shouldn't wait. ;) With mainline, it is simply queued
> > with every other request. There could be an RT40, and a SCHED_NORMAL in
> > front of it in the queue that will get processed first. In addition,
> > the system could suffer from a priority inversion if some unrelated but
> > lower priority task (say RT98) was blocking the workqueue thread from
> > making forward progress on the nice -5 job.
> >
> > To clarify: when a design utilizes a singlethread per workqueue (such as
> > in both mainline and this patch), the RT99 will always have to wait
> > behind any already dispatched jobs.
>
> It is not that "RT99 will always have to wait". But yes, the work_struct
> queued by RT99 has to wait.

Agreed. We are talking only within the scope of workqueues here.


> > 1) The RT99 task would move ahead in the queue of anything else that was
> > also scheduled on the workqueue that is < RT99.
>
> this itself is wrong, breaks flush_workqueue() semantics

Perhaps in Daniels patch. I am not familiar enough with plist to be
able to tell you if it has a problem there or not. However, I think
this works in the original patch I submitted with had a different
queuing mechanism. Daniels patch was derived from that so he may have
inadvertently picked up something from mine which was no longer true in
the new design. I'll defer to Daniel for clarification there.

However, IIUC the point of flush_workqueue() is a barrier only relative
to your own submissions, correct?. E.g. to make sure *your* requests
are finished, not necessarily the entire queue.

If thats true, the flush would be injected at the same priority(*) as
your other pending tasks at the tail of that priority level. Then you
would still block until all of your tasks complete.

If flush_workqueue is supposed to behave differently than I describe,
then I agree its broken even in my original patch.

(*) We would probably have to protect against somebody else PI-boosting
*us* ;)

>
> > 2) The priority of the workqueue task would be temporarily elevated to
> > RT99 so that the currently dispatched task will complete at the same
> > priority as the waiter.
>
> _Which_ waiter?

The RT99 task that submitted the request.

> I can't understand at all why work_struct should "inherit"
> the priority of the task which queued it.

Think about it: If you are an RT99 task and you have work to do,
shouldn't *all* of the work you need be done at RT99 if possible. Why
should something like a measly RT98 task block you from completing your
work. ;) The fact that you need to do some work via a workqueue (perhaps
because you need specific cpu routing) is inconsequential, IMHO.

Regards,
-Greg

-
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: 2007-08-02 00:05    [W:0.050 / U:0.948 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site