lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFD/RFC PATCH 5/8] sched: Add proxy execution
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 02:34:48PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Luca,
>
> On 10/10/18 13:10, luca abeni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:24:31 +0200
> > Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +migrate_task:
> > [...]
> > > + put_prev_task(rq, next);
> > > + if (rq->curr != rq->idle) {
> > > + rq->proxy = rq->idle;
> > > + set_tsk_need_resched(rq->idle);
> > > + /*
> > > + * XXX [juril] don't we still need to migrate @next
> > > to
> > > + * @owner's CPU?
> > > + */
> > > + return rq->idle;
> > > + }
> >
> > If I understand well, this code ends up migrating the task only if the
> > CPU was previously idle? (scheduling the idle task if the CPU was not
> > previously idle)
> >
> > Out of curiosity (I admit this is my ignorance), why is this needed?
> > If I understand well, after scheduling the idle task the scheduler will
> > be invoked again (because of the set_tsk_need_resched(rq->idle)) but I
> > do not understand why it is not possible to migrate task "p" immediately
> > (I would just check "rq->curr != p", to avoid migrating the currently
> > scheduled task).
>
> As the comment suggests, I was also puzzled by this bit.
>
> I'd be inclined to agree with you, it seems that the only case in which
> we want to "temporarily" schedule the idle task is if the proxy was
> executing (so it just blocked on the mutex and being scheduled out).
>
> If it wasn't we should be able to let the current "curr" continue
> executing, in this case returning it as next will mean that schedule
> takes the else branch and there isn't an actual context switch.
>
> > > + rq->proxy = &fake_task;
>
> [...]
>
> We can maybe also rq->proxy = rq->curr and return rq->curr in such a
> case, instead of the below?
>
> > > + return NULL; /* Retry task selection on _this_ CPU. */
>
> Peter, what are we missing? :-)

I think it was the safe and simple choice; note that we're not migrating
just a single @p, but a whole chain of @p. rq->curr must not be any of the
possible @p's. rq->idle, is per definition not one of the @p's.

Does that make sense?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-11 14:54    [W:0.083 / U:4.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site