From: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] sched: introduce distinct per-cpu load average
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:43:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121004094349.GA2163@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1349341186.4438.1.camel@twins>
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 10:59:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 01:05 +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -727,15 +727,17 @@ static void dequeue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > void activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > {
> > if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
> > - rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
> > + cpu_rq(p->on_cpu_uninterruptible)->nr_uninterruptible--;
> >
> > enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
> > }
>
> That's completely broken, you cannot do non-atomic cross-cpu
> modifications like that. Also, adding an atomic op to the wakeup/sleep
> paths isn't going to be popular at all.
Right, the update must be atomic to have a coherent nr_uninterruptible
value. And AFAICS the only way to account a coherent nr_uninterruptible
value per-cpu is to go with atomic ops... mmh... I'll think more on
this.
>
> > void deactivate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > {
> > - if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
> > - rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
> > + if (task_contributes_to_load(p)) {
> > + task_rq(p)->nr_uninterruptible++;
> > + p->on_cpu_uninterruptible = task_cpu(p);
> > + }
> >
> > dequeue_task(rq, p, flags);
> > }
>
> This looks pointless, at deactivate time task_rq() had better be rq or
> something is terribly broken.
Correct, I didn't realize that, sorry.
Many thanks for your review, Peter.
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-04 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-03 23:05 [PATCH RFC 0/3] per cpuset load average Andrea Righi
2012-10-03 23:05 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] sched: introduce distinct per-cpu " Andrea Righi
2012-10-04 8:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-04 9:43 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2012-10-04 12:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-04 17:19 ` Andrea Righi
2012-10-03 23:05 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] cpusets: add load avgerage interface Andrea Righi
2012-10-03 23:05 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] cpusets: add documentation of the loadavg file Andrea Righi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121004094349.GA2163@thinkpad \
--to=andrea@betterlinux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paulmenage.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.