Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 22 May 2016 15:27:18 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched,fair: Fix local starvation | From | Wanpeng Li <> |
| |
2016-05-22 15:15 GMT+08:00 Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>: > On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 14:50 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> 2016-05-21 22:04 GMT+08:00 Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>: >> > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 19:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > >> > (Evolution authors must either not do patch review, or use some other >> > mailer. Squint hard, this crud really is your patch;) >> > >> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c >> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c >> > > >> > > @@ -1762,7 +1770,11 @@ void sched_ttwu_pending(void) >> > > > > while (llist) { >> > > > > > p = llist_entry(llist, struct task_struct, wake_entry); >> > > > > > llist = llist_next(llist); >> > > -> > > ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, 0, cookie); >> > > +> > > /* >> > > +> > > * See ttwu_queue(); we only call ttwu_queue_remote() when >> > > +> > > * its a x-cpu wakeup. >> > > +> > > */ >> > > +> > > ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, WF_MIGRATED, cookie); >> > >> > Wakees that were not migrated/normalized eat an unwanted min_vruntime, >> >> Why there were wakees queued by twu_queue_remote() not migrated? > > Queuing to a remote cache domain implies x-cpu wakeup, but does not > imply migration.
What's the meaning of 'x-cpu wakeup'? ;-)
Regards, Wanpeng Li
| |