From: mike kravetz <kravetz@us.ibm.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RT: Fix special-case exception for preempting the local CPU
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:22:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071010162248.GB5049@monkey.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071010144824.21333.52155.stgit@novell1.haskins.net>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:49:35AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 3e75c62..b7f7a96 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1869,7 +1869,8 @@ out_activate:
> * extra locking in this particular case, because
> * we are on the current CPU.)
> */
> - if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq))
> + if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq)
> + && cpu_isset(this_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
> set_tsk_need_resched(this_rq->curr);
> else
> /*
I wonder if it might better to explicitly take the rq lock and try to
put the task on this_rq in this situation? Rather than waiting for
schedule to pull it from a remote rq as part of balance_rt_tasks.
A question that has passed through my head a few times is: When waking
a RT task is it better to:
1) run on current CPU if possible
2) run on CPU task previously ran on
I think #1 may result in lower latency. But, if the task has lots of
cache warmth the lower wakeup latency may be negated by running on a
'remote' cpu.
--
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-10 16:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-10 14:49 [PATCH] RT: Fix special-case exception for preempting the local CPU Gregory Haskins
2007-10-10 16:22 ` mike kravetz [this message]
2007-10-11 10:51 ` Ankita Garg
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=20071010162248.GB5049@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=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/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