From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Doubt about push_dl_task() / find_lock_later_rq()
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 15:49:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170104154935.7f08d550@sweethome> (raw)
Hi all,
trying to debug a reclaiming issue discovered by Daniel, I find myself
confused by the push logic... Maybe I am misunderstanding something
very obvious, so I ask here:
- push_dl_task() selects a task to be pushed, and then searches for a
runqueue to push the task to by calling find_lock_later_rq()
- if I understand well, find_lock_later_rq() checks all the candidate
runqueues for pushing, and then compares the deadline of the task
with "dl.earliest_dl.curr" of the candidate runqueue, to check if
pushing the task there makes sense or not
- now, my understanding is that in order to implement gEDF task T must
be pushed on CPU C if the deadline of T is smaller than the earliest
deadline of tasks on C... That is to say, the deadline of T must be
smaller than the deadline of the task that is currently executing on
C... No?
- But as far as I understand "dl.earliest_dl.curr" is the earliest
deadline of _pushable_ tasks that are on the remote runqueue... That
is to say, "earliest_dl.curr" does not consider the deadline of the
task currently executing on the remote runqueue
- So, it seems to me that tasks are sometimes pushed to other runqueues
even if they have a deadline that is not smaller than the deadline of
the task executing on the "target" runqueue (so, a task is pushed but
not immediately scheduled for execution). Is this correct? What is
the logic behind this behaviour?
I would be tempted to say that the correct check is not
dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline, later_rq->dl.earliest_dl.curr)
(as it is now in find_lock_later_rq()), but
dl_time_before(task->dl.deadline, later_rq->curr->dl.deadline)
This, in my view, would migrate a task only when it is going to preempt
the current of the remote runqueue. What am I missing?
Thanks,
Luca
next reply other threads:[~2017-01-04 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-04 14:49 luca abeni [this message]
2017-01-05 7:29 ` Doubt about push_dl_task() / find_lock_later_rq() luca abeni
2017-01-05 11:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-05 12:19 ` luca abeni
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=20170104154935.7f08d550@sweethome \
--to=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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