From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764560AbXKQG3g (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:29:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762006AbXKQGYq (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:24:46 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.57]:45571 "EHLO ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759126AbXKQGYk (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:24:40 -0500 Message-Id: <20071117062405.149639013@goodmis.org> References: <20071117062104.177779113@goodmis.org> User-Agent: quilt/0.46-1 Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:21:17 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: LKML Cc: Ingo Molnar , Gregory Haskins , Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Lameter , Steven Rostedt Subject: [PATCH v3 13/17] RT: Pre-route RT tasks on wakeup Content-Disposition: inline; filename=0005-pre-route-rt-tasks-on-wakeup.patch Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Gregory Haskins In the original patch series that Steven Rostedt and I worked on together, we both took different approaches to low-priority wakeup path. I utilized "pre-routing" (push the task away to a less important RQ before activating) approach, while Steve utilized a "post-routing" approach. The advantage of my approach is that you avoid the overhead of a wasted activate/deactivate cycle and peripherally related burdens. The advantage of Steve's method is that it neatly solves an issue preventing a "pull" optimization from being deployed. In the end, we ended up deploying Steve's idea. But it later dawned on me that we could get the best of both worlds by deploying both ideas together, albeit slightly modified. The idea is simple: Use a "light-weight" lookup for pre-routing, since we only need to approximate a good home for the task. And we also retain the post-routing push logic to clean up any inaccuracies caused by a condition of "priority mistargeting" caused by the lightweight lookup. Most of the time, the pre-routing should work and yield lower overhead. In the cases where it doesnt, the post-router will bat cleanup. Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt --- kernel/sched_rt.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) Index: linux-compile.git/kernel/sched_rt.c =================================================================== --- linux-compile.git.orig/kernel/sched_rt.c 2007-11-16 22:23:45.000000000 -0500 +++ linux-compile.git/kernel/sched_rt.c 2007-11-16 22:23:48.000000000 -0500 @@ -42,8 +42,27 @@ static void update_rt_migration(struct r rt_clear_overload(rq); } +static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task); + static int select_task_rq_rt(struct task_struct *p, int sync) { + struct rq *rq = task_rq(p); + + /* + * If the task will not preempt the RQ, try to find a better RQ + * before we even activate the task + */ + if ((p->prio >= rq->rt.highest_prio) + && (p->nr_cpus_allowed > 1)) { + int cpu = find_lowest_rq(p); + + return (cpu == -1) ? task_cpu(p) : cpu; + } + + /* + * Otherwise, just let it ride on the affined RQ and the + * post-schedule router will push the preempted task away + */ return task_cpu(p); } #endif /* CONFIG_SMP */ --