From: mike kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
pmorreale@novell.com, sdietrich@novell.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH RT] push waiting rt tasks to cpus with lower prios.
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:17:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071009211738.GC23388@monkey.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0710091645110.25406@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 04:50:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I did something like this a while ago for another scheduling project.
> > A couple 'possible' optimizations to think about are:
> > 1) Only scan the remote runqueues once and keep a local copy of the
> > remote priorities for subsequent 'scans'. Accessing the remote
> > runqueus (CPU specific cache lines) can be expensive.
>
> You mean to keep the copy for the next two tries?
Yes. But with #2 below, your next try is the runqueue/CPU that is the
next best candidate (after the trylock fails). The 'hope' is that there
is more than one candidate CPU to push the task to. Of course, you
always want to try and find the 'best' candidate. My thoughts were that
if you could find ANY cpu to take the task that would be better than
sending the IPI everywhere. With multiple runqueues/locks there is no
way you can be guaranteed of making the 'best' placement. So, a good
placement may be enough.
> > 2) When verifying priorities, just perform spin_trylock() on the remote
> > runqueue. If you can immediately get it great. If not, it implies
> > someone else is messing with the runqueue and there is a good chance
> > the data you pre-fetched (curr->Priority) is invalid. In this case
> > it might be faster to just 'move on' to the next candidate runqueue/CPU.
> > i.e. The next highest priority that the new task can preempt.
--
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-09 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-09 14:25 [PATCH 0/5] RT: scheduler fixes and rt_overload enhancements Gregory Haskins
2007-10-09 14:25 ` [PATCH 1/5] RT - fix for scheduling issue Gregory Haskins
2007-10-09 14:25 ` [PATCH 2/5] RT - fix reschedule IPI Gregory Haskins
2007-10-09 14:25 ` [PATCH 3/5] RT - fix mistargeted RESCHED_IPI Gregory Haskins
2007-10-09 14:26 ` [PATCH 4/5] RT: Add a per-cpu rt_overload indication Gregory Haskins
2007-10-09 14:26 ` [PATCH 5/5] RT - Track which CPUs should get IPI'd on rt-overload Gregory Haskins
2007-10-09 15:00 ` [PATCH 0/5] RT: scheduler fixes and rt_overload enhancements Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-09 15:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-09 15:33 ` Gregory Haskins
2007-10-09 15:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-09 17:59 ` [RFC PATCH RT] push waiting rt tasks to cpus with lower prios Steven Rostedt
2007-10-09 18:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-09 18:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-09 18:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-09 20:39 ` mike kravetz
2007-10-09 20:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2007-10-09 21:17 ` mike kravetz [this message]
2007-10-10 2:12 ` Girish kathalagiri
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=20071009211738.GC23388@monkey.ibm.com \
--to=kravetz@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmorreale@novell.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sdietrich@novell.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