From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 08:16:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170406061622.GA19979@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170405083753.7eszej2njds4ovdb@linutronix.de>
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On 2017-04-05 09:39:43 [+0200], Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > So maybe we could add the following facility:
> >
> > ptr = sched_migrate_to_cpu_save(cpu);
> >
> > ...
> >
> > sched_migrate_to_cpu_restore(ptr);
BTW., and I'm sure this has come up before, but why doesn't migrate_disable() use
a simple per task flag that the scheduler migration code takes into account?
It should be functionally equivalent to the current solution, and it appears to
have a heck of a smaller cross section with the rest of the scheduler.
I.e.:
static inline void migrate_disable(void)
{
current->migration_disabled++;
}
...
static inline void migrate_enable(void)
{
current->migration_disabled--;
}
or so? Then add this flag as a condition to can_migrate_task() et al.
While we generally dislike such flags as they wreck havoc with the scheduler if
overused, the cpus_allowed based solution has the exact same effect so it's not
like it's a step backwards - and it should also be much faster and less intrusive.
Am I missing some complication?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 6:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-04 18:42 [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU mask Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-05 7:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-05 8:37 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 6:16 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2017-04-06 7:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 8:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 9:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 11:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-07 7:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-04-06 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 9:46 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-04-06 10:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 11:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 11:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-06 12:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-11 1:38 ` [lkp-robot] [kernel] c1f943ee40: kernel_BUG_at_kernel/smpboot.c kernel test robot
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=20170406061622.GA19979@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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