From: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Paul Menage <paul@paulmenage.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] sched: introduce distinct per-cpu load average
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 11:43:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121004094349.GA2163@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1349341186.4438.1.camel@twins>
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 10:59:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 01:05 +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -727,15 +727,17 @@ static void dequeue_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > void activate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > {
> > if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
> > - rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
> > + cpu_rq(p->on_cpu_uninterruptible)->nr_uninterruptible--;
> >
> > enqueue_task(rq, p, flags);
> > }
>
> That's completely broken, you cannot do non-atomic cross-cpu
> modifications like that. Also, adding an atomic op to the wakeup/sleep
> paths isn't going to be popular at all.
Right, the update must be atomic to have a coherent nr_uninterruptible
value. And AFAICS the only way to account a coherent nr_uninterruptible
value per-cpu is to go with atomic ops... mmh... I'll think more on
this.
>
> > void deactivate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > {
> > - if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
> > - rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
> > + if (task_contributes_to_load(p)) {
> > + task_rq(p)->nr_uninterruptible++;
> > + p->on_cpu_uninterruptible = task_cpu(p);
> > + }
> >
> > dequeue_task(rq, p, flags);
> > }
>
> This looks pointless, at deactivate time task_rq() had better be rq or
> something is terribly broken.
Correct, I didn't realize that, sorry.
Many thanks for your review, Peter.
-Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-04 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-03 23:05 [PATCH RFC 0/3] per cpuset load average Andrea Righi
2012-10-03 23:05 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] sched: introduce distinct per-cpu " Andrea Righi
2012-10-04 8:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-04 9:43 ` Andrea Righi [this message]
2012-10-04 12:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-04 17:19 ` Andrea Righi
2012-10-03 23:05 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] cpusets: add load avgerage interface Andrea Righi
2012-10-03 23:05 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] cpusets: add documentation of the loadavg file Andrea Righi
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=20121004094349.GA2163@thinkpad \
--to=andrea@betterlinux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paulmenage.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).