From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq in check_preempt_wakeup
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 11:57:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1309600625.10073.8.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110702090817.GB17482@elte.hu>
On Sat, 2011-07-02 at 11:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul Turner <pjt@google.com> wrote:
>
> > We update_curr() versus the current entity as the preemption
> > decision is based on the relative vruntime. However, update_curr()
> > is not hierarchical and in the group scheduling case
> > find_matching_se() will have us making the comparison on a cfs_rq
> > different to the one just updated.
>
> Would be nice to include more contextual information in the
> changelog: how did you find it, what effect (if any) did you
> see from this patch, what effect do you expect others to see
> (if any).
Agreed that the Changelog can be improved. From talking to pjt on IRC
though, I think he spotted this by reading through the code.
The effect of not updating the correct se for comparison is that you
compare the new task to old data of the existing task, thereby giving a
slight preference to the old task (its further to the left than it
should be and thus more desirable to run).
That said, I'm not quite sure the patch is correct though, both se and
pse can change in find_match_se(), maybe we should do update_curr() on
every se we traverse in there, or at least the final two.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-02 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20110702005222.262883892@google.com>
2011-07-02 0:52 ` [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq in check_preempt_wakeup Paul Turner
2011-07-02 9:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-02 9:57 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-07-02 10:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-07-06 2:07 ` Paul Turner
2011-07-21 18:27 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: update correct entity's runtime in check_preempt_wakeup() tip-bot for Paul Turner
2011-07-06 1:54 ` [patch 1/1] sched: update_curr versus correct cfs_rq in check_preempt_wakeup Paul Turner
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=1309600625.10073.8.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pjt@google.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