Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Nov 2020 09:27:47 +1100 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -tip 10/32] sched: Fix priority inversion of cookied task with sibling |
| |
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 09:29:14AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:05:19AM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > @@ -5259,7 +5254,20 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf) > > > * Optimize the 'normal' case where there aren't any > > > * cookies and we don't need to sync up. > > > */ > > > - if (i == cpu && !need_sync && !p->core_cookie) { > > > + if (i == cpu && !need_sync) { > > > + if (p->core_cookie) { > > > + /* > > > + * This optimization is only valid as > > > + * long as there are no cookies > > > > This is not entirely true, need_sync is a function of core cookies, so I > > think this needs more clarification, it sounds like we enter this when > > the core has no cookies, but the task has a core_cookie? The term cookie > > is quite overloaded when used in the context of core vs task. > > Nah, its the same. So each task gets a cookie to identify the 'group' of > tasks (possibly just itself) it is allowed to share a core with. > > When we to core task selection, the core gets assigned the cookie of the > group it will run, same thing. > > > Effectively from what I understand this means that p wants to be > > coscheduled, but the core itself is not coscheduling anything at the > > moment, so we need to see if we should do a sync and that sync might > > cause p to get kicked out and a higher priority class to come in? > > This whole patch is about eliding code-wide task selection when it is > not required. IOW an optimization. > > When there wasn't a core cookie (IOW, the previous task selection wasn't > core wide and limited) and the task we just selected for our own CPU > also didn't have a cookie (IOW it doesn't have to be core-wide) we can > skip the core wide task selection and schedule just this CPU and call it > a day. > > The logic was subtly wrong, this patch fixes it. A next patch completely > rewrites it again to make it far simpler again. Don't spend time trying > to understand this patch (unless you're _that_ kind of person ;-) but > instead apply the whole thing and look at the resulting pick_next_task() > function.
Thanks, I'll look at the git tree and see what the final outcome looks like.
Balbir Singh.
| |