lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v5 4/7] sched: bias task wakeups to preferred semi-idle packages
    * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2008-12-15 09:25:21]:

    > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:31 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
    >
    > > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
    > > > 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
    > > >
    > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
    > > > index 98345e4..939f2a1 100644
    > > > --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
    > > > +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
    > > > @@ -1027,6 +1027,23 @@ static int wake_idle(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
    > > > cpumask_t tmp;
    > > > struct sched_domain *sd;
    > > > int i;
    > > > + unsigned int chosen_wakeup_cpu;
    > > > + int this_cpu;
    > > > +
    > > > + /*
    > > > + * At POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP level, if both this_cpu and prev_cpu
    > > > + * are idle and this is not a kernel thread and this task's affinity
    > > > + * allows it to be moved to preferred cpu, then just move!
    > > > + */
    > > > +
    > > > + this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
    > > > + chosen_wakeup_cpu =
    > > > + cpu_rq(this_cpu)->rd->sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu;
    > > > +
    > > > + if (sched_mc_power_savings >= POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP &&
    > > > + idle_cpu(cpu) && idle_cpu(this_cpu) && p->mm &&
    > >
    > > The p->mm check is racy, it needs to be done under task_lock(). The
    > > best way to check for a kernel thread is get_task_mm(), followed by
    > > put_task_mm() is the mm is not NULL. We also need to check to see if
    > > the task is _hot_ on cpu. We should negate this optimization in case
    > > chosen_wakeup_cpu is idle, so check for that as well.
    >
    > Sure its racy, but so what?
    >
    > The worst I can see it that we exclude a dying task from this logic,
    > which isn't a problem at all, since its dying anyway.

    Fair enough... except that they dying task will wake up a potentially
    idle CPU and die.

    >
    > Also, I don't think you can grab task_lock() from under rq->lock...

    I've not looked at how task_lock() nests under rq->lock. I'll look

    >
    > > > + cpu_isset(chosen_wakeup_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
    > > > + return chosen_wakeup_cpu;
    > > >
    > > > /*
    > > > * If it is idle, then it is the best cpu to run this task.
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    >
    >

    --
    Balbir


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-12-15 09:47    [W:0.034 / U:0.380 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site