From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Doubt about push_dl_task() / find_lock_later_rq()
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:49:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170104154935.7f08d550@sweethome> (raw)
Hi all,
trying to debug a reclaiming issue discovered by Daniel, I find myself
confused by the push logic... Maybe I am misunderstanding something
very obvious, so I ask here:
- push_dl_task() selects a task to be pushed, and then searches for a
runqueue to push the task to by calling find_lock_later_rq()
- if I understand well, find_lock_later_rq() checks all the candidate
runqueues for pushing, and then compares the deadline of the task
with "dl.earliest_dl.curr" of the candidate runqueue, to check if
pushing the task there makes sense or not
- now, my understanding is that in order to implement gEDF task T must
be pushed on CPU C if the deadline of T is smaller than the earliest
deadline of tasks on C... That is to say, the deadline of T must be
smaller than the deadline of the task that is currently executing on
C... No?
- But as far as I understand "dl.earliest_dl.curr" is the earliest
deadline of _pushable_ tasks that are on the remote runqueue... That
is to say, "earliest_dl.curr" does not consider the deadline of the
task currently executing on the remote runqueue
- So, it seems to me that tasks are sometimes pushed to other runqueues
even if they have a deadline that is not smaller than the deadline of
the task executing on the "target" runqueue (so, a task is pushed but
not immediately scheduled for execution). Is this correct? What is
the logic behind this behaviour?
I would be tempted to say that the correct check is not
dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline, later_rq->dl.earliest_dl.curr)
(as it is now in find_lock_later_rq()), but
dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline, later_rq->curr->dl.deadline)
This, in my view, would migrate a task only when it is going to preempt
the current of the remote runqueue. What am I missing?
Thanks,
Luca
next reply other threads:[~2017-01-04 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-04 14:49 luca abeni [this message]
2017-01-05 7:29 ` Doubt about push_dl_task() / find_lock_later_rq() luca abeni
2017-01-05 11:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-05 12:19 ` luca abeni
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=20170104154935.7f08d550@sweethome \
--to=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.