From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Clark Williams" <williams@redhat.com>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
"Mike Galbraith" <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Jörn Engel" <joern@purestorage.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration instead of pulling
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:08:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150227090830.GF21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150226112635.69b5870f@gandalf.local.home>
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:26:35AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Index: linux-rt.git/kernel/sched/rt.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-rt.git.orig/kernel/sched/rt.c 2015-02-26 10:55:26.107945935 -0500
> +++ linux-rt.git/kernel/sched/rt.c 2015-02-26 10:55:38.277777892 -0500
> +/* Called from hardirq context */
> +static void try_to_push_tasks(void *arg)
> +{
> + struct rt_rq *rt_rq = arg;
> + struct rq *rq, *src_rq;
> + int this_cpu;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + this_cpu = rt_rq->push_cpu;
> +
> + /* Paranoid check */
> + BUG_ON(this_cpu != smp_processor_id());
> +
> + rq = cpu_rq(this_cpu);
> + src_rq = rq_of_rt_rq(rt_rq);
> +
> + again:
Superfluous space there!
> + if (has_pushable_tasks(rq)) {
> + raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> + push_rt_task(rq);
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> + }
So push_rt_task() has a return value; should we use it?
That is, currently we iterate the entire rto mask and migrate everything
we come across, is there an argument to be had to only migrate 1 task
and then call it quits?
> Index: linux-rt.git/kernel/sched/sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-rt.git.orig/kernel/sched/sched.h 2015-02-26 10:55:26.107945935 -0500
> +++ linux-rt.git/kernel/sched/sched.h 2015-02-26 10:55:28.082918664 -0500
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> #include <linux/stop_machine.h>
> +#include <linux/irq_work.h>
> #include <linux/tick.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
>
> @@ -435,6 +436,11 @@ struct rt_rq {
> unsigned long rt_nr_total;
> int overloaded;
> struct plist_head pushable_tasks;
> + struct call_single_data push_csd;
You waaztin' maa spaaz!
> + int push_flags;
> + int push_cpu;
> + struct irq_work push_work;
> + raw_spinlock_t push_lock;
> #endif
> int rt_queued;
>
One could make an argument for using a separate per-cpu variable and
cacheline align the thing...
> Index: linux-rt.git/kernel/sched/features.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-rt.git.orig/kernel/sched/features.h 2015-02-26 10:55:26.107945935 -0500
> +++ linux-rt.git/kernel/sched/features.h 2015-02-26 10:55:28.083918650 -0500
> @@ -56,6 +56,17 @@ SCHED_FEAT(NONTASK_CAPACITY, true)
> */
> SCHED_FEAT(TTWU_QUEUE, true)
>
> +/*
> + * In order to avoid a thundering herd attack of CPUS that are
I would suggest you remap your caps-lock to some useful key :-)
> + * lowering their priorities at the same time, and there being
> + * a single CPU that has an RT task that can migrate and is waiting
> + * to run, where the other CPUs will try to take that CPUs
> + * rq lock and possibly create a large contention, sending an
> + * IPI to that CPU and let that CPU push the RT task to where
> + * it should go may be a better scenario.
> + */
> +SCHED_FEAT(RT_PUSH_IPI, true)
> +
> SCHED_FEAT(FORCE_SD_OVERLAP, false)
> SCHED_FEAT(RT_RUNTIME_SHARE, true)
> SCHED_FEAT(LB_MIN, false)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-27 9:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-26 16:26 [RFC][PATCH v4] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration instead of pulling Steven Rostedt
2015-02-27 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-02-27 14:29 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20150227090830.GF21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=joern@purestorage.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox