lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Call newidle_balance() from finish_task_switch()
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:37:18PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 28/04/20 06:02, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Thus, newidle_balance() is entered with interrupts enabled, which allows
> > (in the next patch) enabling interrupts when the lock is dropped.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 7 ++++---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++----------------------------
> > kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 ++----
> > 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 9a2fbf98fd6f..0294beb8d16c 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -3241,6 +3241,10 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct *prev)
> > }
> >
> > tick_nohz_task_switch();
> > +
> > + if (is_idle_task(current))
> > + newidle_balance();
> > +
>
> This means we must go through a switch_to(idle) before figuring out we
> could've switched to a CFS task, and do it then. I'm curious to see the
> performance impact of that.

Also, if you move it this late, this is entirely the wrong place. If you
do it after the context switch either use the balance_callback or put it
in the idle path.

But what Valentin said; this needs a fair bit of support, the whole
reason we've never done this is to avoid that double context switch...

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-29 00:10    [W:0.878 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site