From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: On migrate_disable() and latencies Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 16:57:43 +0200 Message-ID: <1311346663.9642.0.camel@twins> References: <1311329992.27400.23.camel@twins> <1311331798.27400.28.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: LKML , linux-rt-users , Ingo Molnar , Carsten Emde , Clark Williams , "Paul E. McKenney" , Kumar Gala , Ralf Baechle , rostedt To: Thomas Gleixner Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:45731 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754573Ab1GVO6C convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:58:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1311331798.27400.28.camel@twins> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2011-07-22 at 12:49 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > The scenario is on where you stack N migrate-disable tasks on a run > > queue (necessarily of increasing priority). Doing this requires all cpus > > in the system to be as busy, for otherwise the task would simply be > > moved to another cpu. > > This implies it requires at least nr-cpus^2 tasks to pull this off. OK, scrap that, 2*nr-cpus is enough.