From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: fix wakeup preemption
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:57:21 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48FCFEC1.9000800@nortel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081017172829.768067427@chello.nl>
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In my recent wakeup preempt rework I messed up the asym wakeup.
> The idea is that it should be easier to preempt lighter tasks
> but not harder to preempt heavier tasks.
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -1243,8 +1243,8 @@ static unsigned long wakeup_gran(struct
> * More easily preempt - nice tasks, while not making it harder for
> * + nice tasks.
> */
> - if (sched_feat(ASYM_GRAN))
> - gran = calc_delta_mine(gran, NICE_0_LOAD, &se->load);
> + if (sched_feat(ASYM_GRAN) && se->load.weight < NICE_0_LOAD)
> + gran = (gran * se->load.weight) >> NICE_0_SHIFT;
>
> return gran;
> }
Setting aside whether the asym wakeup is desirable, the code looks
reasonable but I think you need to change the code comments as well.
The proposed code only affects with a weight of less than NICE_0_LOAD,
ie. +nice tasks. The comment suggests the opposite.
Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-20 21:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-17 17:27 [PATCH 0/4] pending scheduler updates Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-17 17:27 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched: optimize group load balancer Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-17 17:27 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched: fair scheduler should not resched rt tasks Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-17 17:27 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched: revert back to per-rq vruntime Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-17 17:27 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched: fix wakeup preemption Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-20 21:57 ` Chris Friesen [this message]
2008-10-20 12:05 ` [PATCH 0/4] pending scheduler updates Ingo Molnar
2008-10-21 17:35 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2008-10-22 9:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-22 10:03 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-10-22 10:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-10-22 12:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-22 12:38 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-10-22 12:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-10-22 13:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-10-22 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-22 17:56 ` Mike Galbraith
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=48FCFEC1.9000800@nortel.com \
--to=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.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