From: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@novell.com>
To: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: <mingo@elte.hu>, <chinang.ma@intel.com>,
<suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>, <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
<willy@linux.intel.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: push rt tasks only if newly activated tasks have been added
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:03:14 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <480ED122.BA47.005A.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b647ffbd0804230253i32f48fcgb5dc7cf5b55607ac@mail.gmail.com>
>>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:53 AM, in message
<b647ffbd0804230253i32f48fcgb5dc7cf5b55607ac@mail.gmail.com>, "Dmitry
Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/4/23 Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>:
>> Hi Steven,
>>
>> > [ ... ]
>>
>> > > square#0:
>> > >
>> > > cpu1: T0 is running
>> > >
>> > > T1 is of the same prio as T0 (shouldn't really matter but to get the
>> > > same result it would require altering the flow of events slightly)
>> > >
>> > > T1's affinity allows it to be run only on cpu1.
>> > > T0 can run on both.
>> > >
>> > > try_to_wake_up() is called for T1.
>> > > |
>> > > --> select_task_rq_rt() => gives cpu1
>> > > |
>> > > --> task_wake_up_rt()
>> > > |
>> > > ---> push_rt_tasks() -> rq->rt.pushed = 1
>> > >
>> > > now, neither T1 (due to its affinity), nor T0 (it's running) can be
>> > > pushed away to cpu0.
>> >
>> > Ah, this may be what you are talking about. T0 was running, but because
>> > T1 has its affinity set to cpu1 it wont cause a push. When T0 schedules
>> > away to give T1 its cpu time, T0 wont push away because of the pushed
>> > flag.
>> >
>> > Hmm, interesting. Of course my response is "Don't use SCHED_RR! It's
>> > evil!" ;-)
>>
>> It's not just SCHED_RR ;-) They both can be of SCHED_FIFO.
>>
>> T1 _preempts_ T0 and again
>>
>>
>> --> task_wake_up_rt()
>> |
>> ---> push_rt_tasks() -> rq->rt.pushed = 1
>>
>> and T0 won't be pushed away to cpu0 by post_schedule_rt().
>>
>> As Gregory has pointed out, at the very least it's a test in
>> task_wake_up_rt() which is wrong.
>>
>> push_rt_tasks() should not be called when 'p' (a newly woken up task)
>> is the next one to run.
>>
>> IOW, it should be (p->prio < rq->curr->prio) instead of (p->prio >=
>> rq->rt.highest_prio).
>
> No, this argument is wrong indeed.
>
> Something like this:
> (white-spaces are broken)
>
> --- sched_rt-prev.c 2008-04-23 11:26:39.000000000 +0200
> +++ sched_rt.c 2008-04-23 11:36:20.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1121,9 +1121,13 @@ static void post_schedule_rt(struct rq *
>
> static void task_wake_up_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - if (!task_running(rq, p) &&
> - (p->prio >= rq->rt.highest_prio) &&
> - rq->rt.overloaded)
> + /*
> + * Consider pushing 'p' off to other CPUS only
> + * if it's not the next task to run on this CPU.
> + */
> + if (rq->rt.overloaded &&
> + p->prio > rq->rt.highest_prio &&
> + pick_rt_task(rq, p, -1))
> push_rt_tasks(rq);
> }
>
>
> or even this (although, it's a bit heavier)
>
> --- sched_rt-prev.c 2008-04-23 11:26:39.000000000 +0200
> +++ sched_rt.c 2008-04-23 11:49:03.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1118,12 +1118,22 @@ static void post_schedule_rt(struct rq *
> }
> }
>
> static void task_wake_up_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - if (!task_running(rq, p) &&
> - (p->prio >= rq->rt.highest_prio) &&
> - rq->rt.overloaded)
> + if (!rq->rt.overloaded)
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * Consider pushing 'p' off to other CPUS only
> + * if it's not the next task to run on this CPU.
> + * i.e. it's not a single task with the highest prio
> + * on the queue.
> + */
> + if (p->prio == rq->rt.highest_prio &&
> + p->rt.run_list.prev == p->rt.run_list.next)
> + return;
> +
> + if (pick_rt_task(rq, p, -1))
> push_rt_tasks(rq);
> }
>
I think we can simplify this further. We really only need to push here if we are not going to reschedule anytime soon (probably white-space damaged):
--- a/kernel/sched_rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c
@@ -1058,11 +1058,14 @@ static void post_schedule_rt(struct rq *rq)
}
}
-
+/*
+ * If we are not running and we are not going to reschedule soon, we should
+ * try to push tasks away now
+ */
static void task_wake_up_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
{
if (!task_running(rq, p) &&
- (p->prio >= rq->rt.highest_prio) &&
+ !test_tsk_thread_flag(rq->curr, TIF_NEED_RESCHED) &&
rq->rt.overloaded)
push_rt_tasks(rq);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-23 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-21 18:10 [PATCH 0/2] sched: refreshes Gregory Haskins
2008-04-21 18:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: push rt tasks only if newly activated tasks have been added Gregory Haskins
2008-04-22 15:30 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-04-22 15:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-23 8:05 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-04-23 9:53 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-04-23 10:03 ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2008-04-23 10:23 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-04-23 10:54 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-04-23 11:20 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-04-22 16:38 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-04-23 11:13 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] sched fixes for suboptimal balancing Gregory Haskins
2008-04-23 11:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: fix RT task-wakeup logic Gregory Haskins
2008-04-23 12:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-23 14:29 ` Dmitry Adamushko
2008-04-24 11:56 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-04-28 16:30 ` [(RESEND) PATCH] " Gregory Haskins
2008-04-29 14:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-23 11:13 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: prioritize non-migratable tasks over migratable ones Gregory Haskins
2008-04-23 12:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2008-04-23 13:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: prioritize non-migratable tasks over migratableones Gregory Haskins
2008-04-28 18:55 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] sched fixes for suboptimal balancing Ingo Molnar
2008-04-21 18:10 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: Use a 2-d bitmap for searching lowest-pri CPU Gregory Haskins
2008-04-21 19:33 ` [PATCH 0/2] sched: refreshes Ingo Molnar
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=480ED122.BA47.005A.0@novell.com \
--to=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chinang.ma@intel.com \
--cc=dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=willy@linux.intel.com \
/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