public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Roehricht <ml@felicis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduling the highest priority task
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:05:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <46B2471C.5060801@felicis.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070802194825.GA23245@elte.hu>

On 02.08.2007 21:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Martin Roehricht <ml@felicis.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 08/02/2007 05:19 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >* Martin Roehricht <ml@felicis.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>That's fine with me, that within the same priority-queue any task can 
>> >>be chosen. But assume two tasks with highly different priorities, such 
>> >>as 105 and 135 are scheduled on the same processor and one of them is 
>> >>now to be migrated -- shouldn't be the queue with task P=105 
>> >>considered first for migration by this code? Both tasks would use 
>> >>different queues with their own linked lists, right?
>> >
>> >yes. What makes you believe that the lower priority one (prio 135) is 
>> >chosen? [ as i said before, that will only be chosen if all tasks in the 
>> >higher-priority queue (prio 105) are either already running on a CPU or 
>> >have recently run so that the cache-hot logic skips them. ]
>> 
>> This believe is primarily based on my observations of multiple 
>> benchmark runs and also on your statement earlier: »in the SMP 
>> migration code, the 'old scheduler' indeed picks the lowest priority 
>> one«.
> 
> oh, sorry, that was meant to be the 'highest priority one' :-/
> 
> so i think you got it all right, i just typoed that first sentence.

Okay, now I think I understood this part of the code correctly. The 
reason why I observe a continous migration of the _lower_ priority tasks 
is most probably due to the fact that the higher priority one is 
currently running, according to:
	can_migrate_task() in move_tasks(), and therein:

	if (task_running(rq, p))
		return 0;

I tracked down via an extended /proc/schedstats that my tasks fall 
frequently into this pitfall. I basically solved it by making use of the 
more active push-strategy which is called later by load_balance() once 
the move_tasks() function did not succeed. So in case I need the higher 
priority tasks, I return immediately from move_tasks().

Thanks for your help,
Martin

      reply	other threads:[~2007-08-02 21:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <8KLFD-G9-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
2007-07-25 15:18 ` highest and lowest priority job of a runqueue Martin Roehricht
2007-08-02  8:58 ` Scheduling the highest priority task Martin Roehricht
2007-08-02 11:40   ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-02 15:00     ` Martin Roehricht
2007-08-02 15:03       ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-02 15:14         ` Martin Roehricht
2007-08-02 15:19           ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-02 15:46             ` Martin Roehricht
2007-08-02 19:48               ` Ingo Molnar
2007-08-02 21:05                 ` Martin Roehricht [this message]

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=46B2471C.5060801@felicis.org \
    --to=ml@felicis.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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