[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: Minimize the idle cpu selection race window.

On 2017/11/23 10:00 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 11:52 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>>> Hello, Atish, Peter, all.
>>> I have a question about if a task's nr_cpus_allowed is 1.
>>> In that scenario we do not call select_task_rq. Therefore
>>> even thought a task "p" is placed on idle CPU that CPU
>>> will not be marked as claimed for wake-up.
>>> What do you think about adding per_cpu(claim_wakeup, cpu) = 1;
>>> to select_task_rq() instead and possibly get rid of them from
>>> other places (increases a race window a bit)?
>> My thoughts on all of this is that we need less SIS, not more.  Rather
>> than trying so hard for the absolute lowest wakeup latency, which
>> induces throughput/efficiency robbing bouncing, I think we'd be better
>> of considering leaving an already llc affine task where it is if the
>> average cycle time is sufficiently low that it will likely hit the CPU
>> RSN.  Completely ignoring low utilization kernel threads would go a
>> long way to getting rid of bouncing userspace (which tends to have a
>> meaningful footprint), all over hell and creation.
>> You could also periodically send mobile kthreads down the slow path to
>> try to keep them the hell away from partially busy CPUs, as well as
>> anything else that hasn't run for a while, to keep background cruft
>> from continually injecting itself into the middle of a cross core
>> cyber-sex.
> And on this thanksgiving I'm thankful for Mike, and his entertaining early
> morning emails.
:) :).
> Josef

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-23 22:13    [W:0.577 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site