lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] sched,fair: Fix local starvation
From
2016-05-22 16:04 GMT+08:00 Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>:
> On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 15:42 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> 2016-05-22 15:32 GMT+08:00 Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>:
>> > On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 15:27 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> >
>> > > What's the meaning of 'x-cpu wakeup'? ;-)
>> >
>> > Generally, cross CPU, as in waker/wakee reside on different CPUs,
>> > but
>> > in this case, it's cross socket wakeup.
>>
>> Do you mean wakeup wakees on remote socket don't imply
>> migration/normalized, why?
>
> Because the wakee is NOT necessarily migrated simply because it lives
> in some remote cache domain. It was a simple but nasty booboo.
>
> ttwu():
> cpu = select_task_rq(p, p->wake_cpu, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
> if (task_cpu(p) != cpu) {
> wake_flags |= WF_MIGRATED;
> set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
>
> set_task_cpu():
> if (task_cpu(p) != new_cpu) {
> if (p->sched_class->migrate_task_rq)
> p->sched_class->migrate_task_rq(p);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> migrate_task_rq_fair() normalizes wakee, those wakees that did not
> migrate have NOT been normalized, leaving two flavors of wakee on the
> wake_list, with no discriminator. Store class information internally,
> and the x-socket information disconnect evaporates.

Do all wakees live on some remote cache domain will not migrate or
just the ones which can't find an suitable cpu in current local
socket(failed in select_task_rq())?

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-05-22 10:41    [W:4.037 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site