Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:27:55 +0800 | From | Yong Zhang <> | Subject | Re: [sched/rt] Optimization of function pull_rt_task() |
| |
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:45:16PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > > > 19.04.2012, 12:54, "Yong Zhang" <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 05:16:55PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > >> ?On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 14:32 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >>> ?On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 12:06 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > >>>> ?On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 23:45 +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote: > >>>>> ?The condition (src_rq->rt.rt_nr_running) is weak because it doesn't > >>>>> ?consider the cases when src_rq has only processes bound to it (when > >>>>> ?single cpu is allowed). It may be running kernel thread like > >>>>> ?migration/x etc. > >>>>> > >>>>> ?So it's better to use more stronger condition which is able to exclude > >>>>> ?above conditions. The function has_pushable_tasks() complitely does > >>>>> ?this. A task may be pullable for another cpu rq only if he is pushable > >>>>> ?for his own queue. > >>>> ?I considered this before, and for some reason I never did the change. > >>>> ?I'll have to think about it. It seems like this would be the obvious > >>>> ?case, but I think there was something not so obvious that caused issues. > >>>> ?But I don't remember what it was. > >>>> > >>>> ?I'll have to rethink this again. > >>> ?I can't find anything wrong with this change. Maybe things change, or I > >>> ?was thinking of another change. > >>> > >>> ?I'll apply it and start running my tests against it. > >> ?Not only does this seem to work fine, I took it one step further :-) > > > > Hmm... throttle doesn't handle the pushable list, so we may find a > > throttled task by pick_next_pushable_task(). > > > > Thanks, > > Yong > > I don't complitelly understand throttle logic. > > Is the source patch not-appliable the same reason?
I guess so.
Your patch will change the semantic of pick_next_pushable_task().
Thanks, Yong
> > Kirill > > > > >> ?Peter, do you see anything wrong with this patch? > >> > >> ?-- Steve > >> > >> ?diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c > >> ?index 61e3086..b44fd1b 100644 > >> ?--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c > >> ?+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c > >> ?@@ -1416,39 +1416,15 @@ static int pick_rt_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int cpu) > >> ??/* Return the second highest RT task, NULL otherwise */ > >> ??static struct task_struct *pick_next_highest_task_rt(struct rq *rq, int cpu) > >> ??{ > >> ?- struct task_struct *next = NULL; > >> ?- struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se; > >> ?- struct rt_prio_array *array; > >> ?- struct rt_rq *rt_rq; > >> ?- int idx; > >> ?+ struct plist_head *head = &rq->rt.pushable_tasks; > >> ?+ struct task_struct *next; > >> > >> ?- for_each_leaf_rt_rq(rt_rq, rq) { > >> ?- array = &rt_rq->active; > >> ?- idx = sched_find_first_bit(array->bitmap); > >> ?-next_idx: > >> ?- if (idx >= MAX_RT_PRIO) > >> ?- continue; > >> ?- if (next && next->prio <= idx) > >> ?- continue; > >> ?- list_for_each_entry(rt_se, array->queue + idx, run_list) { > >> ?- struct task_struct *p; > >> ?- > >> ?- if (!rt_entity_is_task(rt_se)) > >> ?- continue; > >> ?- > >> ?- p = rt_task_of(rt_se); > >> ?- if (pick_rt_task(rq, p, cpu)) { > >> ?- next = p; > >> ?- break; > >> ?- } > >> ?- } > >> ?- if (!next) { > >> ?- idx = find_next_bit(array->bitmap, MAX_RT_PRIO, idx+1); > >> ?- goto next_idx; > >> ?- } > >> ?+ plist_for_each_entry(next, head, pushable_tasks) { > >> ?+ if (pick_rt_task(rq, next, cpu)) > >> ?+ return next; > >> ??????????} > >> > >> ?- return next; > >> ?+ return NULL; > >> ??} > >> > >> ??static DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, local_cpu_mask); > >> > >> ?-- > >> ?To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > >> ?the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >> ?More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> ?Please read the FAQ at ?http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > -- > > Only stand for myself > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- Only stand for myself
| |