lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 15/16] sched: Trivial forced-newidle balancer
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:42 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:19:46PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 18/02/2019 16:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +static bool try_steal_cookie(int this, int that)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rq *dst = cpu_rq(this), *src = cpu_rq(that);
> > > + struct task_struct *p;
> > > + unsigned long cookie;
> > > + bool success = false;
> > > +
> > > + local_irq_disable();
> > > + double_rq_lock(dst, src);

Here, should we check dst and src's rq status before lock their rq?
if src is idle, it could be in the progress of load balance already?

Thanks,
-Aubrey

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 3e3162f..a1e0a6f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3861,6 +3861,13 @@ static bool try_steal_cookie(int this, int that)
unsigned long cookie;
bool success = false;

+ /*
+ * Don't steal if src is idle or has only one runnable task,
+ * or dst has more than one runnable task
+ */
+ if (src->nr_running <= 1 || unlikely(dst->nr_running >= 1))
+ return false;
+
local_irq_disable();
double_rq_lock(dst, src);
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-04 10:33    [W:0.127 / U:12.540 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site