lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v3 7/10] workqueue: add WQ_IDLEPRI
Hello,

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:50:19PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 19:30:18 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > In the next version, I'll try some like..
> > ==
> > process_one_work(...) {
> > .....
> > spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> > .....
> > if (cwq->wq->flags & WQ_IDLEPRI) {
> > set_scheduler(...SCHED_IDLE...)
> > cond_resched();
> > scheduler_switched = true;
> > }
> > f(work)
> > if (scheduler_switched)
> > set_scheduler(...SCHED_OTHER...)
> > spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> > }
> > ==
> > Patch size will be much smaller. (Should I do this in memcg's code ??)
> >
>
> BTW, my concern is that if f(work) is enough short,effect of SCHED_IDLE will never
> be found because SCHED_OTHER -> SCHED_IDLE -> SCHED_OTHER switch is very fast.
> Changed "weight" of CFQ never affects the next calculation of vruntime..of the
> thread and the work will show the same behavior with SCHED_OTHER.
>
> I'm sorry if I misunderstand CFQ and setscheduler().

Hmm... I'm not too familiar there either but,

* If prio is lowered (you're gonna lower it too, right?),
prio_changed_fair() is called which in turn does resched_task() as
necessary.

* More importantly, for short work items, it's likely to not matter at
all. If you can determine beforehand that it's not gonna take very
long time, queueing on system_wq would be more efficient.

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-26 13:47    [W:0.055 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site