From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yong Zhang Subject: Re: On migrate_disable() and latencies Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:50:43 +0800 Message-ID: <20110728055043.GA570@windriver.com> References: <1311329992.27400.23.camel@twins> <20110723003934.GP2382@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1311582653.2617.49.camel@laptop> <20110725211706.GT2327@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1311765198.24752.437.camel@twins> <20110727183008.GA2407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Yong Zhang Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , linux-rt-users , Ingo Molnar , Carsten Emde , Clark Williams , Kumar Gala , Ralf Baechle , rostedt , Nicholas Mc Guire To: "Paul E. McKenney" Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f52.google.com ([209.85.212.52]:56372 "EHLO mail-vw0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751971Ab1G1F7E (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:59:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110727183008.GA2407@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:30:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > o Tasks awakening outside of migrate-disable regions will pick > the CPU running the lowest-priority task, whether or not this > task is in migrate-disable state. (At least I don't see > anything in 3.0-rt3 that looks like a scheduling decision > based on ->migrate_disable, perhaps due to blindness.) I'm also confused here, seems we just disable migration for RT task. migrate_disable() { ... if (p->sched_class->set_cpus_allowed) p->sched_class->set_cpus_allowed(p, mask); p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed = cpumask_weight(mask); ... } Shouldn't we also forbid migration on !RT task? Thanks, Yong -- Only stand for myself