lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Q: select_fallback_rq() && cpuset_lock()
From
Date
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 16:22 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/11, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > How can we fix this later? Perhaps we can change
> > cpuset_track_online_cpus(CPU_DEAD) to scan all affected cpusets and
> > fixup the tasks with the wrong ->cpus_allowed == cpu_possible_mask.
>
> Wait. We need to fix the CPU_DEAD case anyway?
>
> Hmm. 6ad4c18884e864cf4c77f9074d3d1816063f99cd
> "sched: Fix balance vs hotplug race" did s/CPU_DEAD/CPU_DOWN_PREPARE/
> in cpuset_track_online_cpus(). This doesn't look exactly right to me,
> we shouldn't do remove_tasks_in_empty_cpuset() at CPU_DOWN_PREPARE
> stage, it can fail.

Sure, tough luck for those few tasks.

> Otoh. This means that move_task_of_dead_cpu() can never see the
> task without active cpus in ->cpus_allowed, it is called later by
> CPU_DEAD. So, cpuset_lock() is not needed at all.

Right,.. so the whole problem is cpumask ops are terribly expensive
since we got this CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK muck, so we try to reduce
these ops in the regular scheduling paths, in the patch you referenced
above the tradeof was between fixing the sched_domains up too often vs
adding a cpumask_and in a hot-path, guess who won ;-)





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-11 16:43    [W:0.069 / U:2.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site