From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:16:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170406061622.GA19979@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170405083753.7eszej2njds4ovdb@linutronix.de>
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 09:39:43 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > So maybe we could add the following facility:
> >
> > ptr = sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(cpu);
> >
> > ...
> >
> > sched_migrate_to_cpu_restore(ptr);
BTW., and I'm sure this has come up before, but why doesn't migrate_disable() use
a simple per task flag that the scheduler migration code takes into account?
It should be functionally equivalent to the current solution, and it appears to
have a heck of a smaller cross section with the rest of the scheduler.
I.e.:
static inline void migrate_disable(void)
{
current->migration_disabled++;
}
...
static inline void migrate_enable(void)
{
current->migration_disabled--;
}
or so? Then add this flag as a condition to can_migrate_task() et al.
While we generally dislike such flags as they wreck havoc with the scheduler if
overused, the cpus_allowed based solution has the exact same effect so it's not
like it's a step backwards - and it should also be much faster and less intrusive.
Am I missing some complication?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 6:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-04 18:42 [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-05 7:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-05 8:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 6:16 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-04-06 7:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 8:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 9:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 11:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-07 7:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:46 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 10:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-11 1:38 ` [lkp-robot] [kernel] c1f943ee40: kernel_BUG_at_kernel/smpboot.c kernel test robot
2017-04-11 1:38 ` kernel test robot
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=20170406061622.GA19979@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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.