From: Michael wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC PATCH] sched: make sure sched-priority after invoke idle_balance()
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:54:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52FDA18D.40100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
Since idle_balance() will release rq-lock for a while, there is a chance that
RT/DL tasks will be enqueued and ask for the resched, the func used to be
invoked ahead of pick_next_task(), which will make sure we drop into the
bottom-half inside pick_next_task().
Now since idle_balance() was done inside pick_next_task_fair(), pick_next_task()
can no longer make sure the priority, the worst case is that we will going to
pick the pulled fair task while there is RT/DL on rq which actually should be
picked up.
This patch will prevent this happen by some rechecking after idle_balance(), it
utilize the resched-flag for the case when RT/DL task was enqueued but don't ask
for resched (will that ever happened?).
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 235cfa7..ce67514 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4776,6 +4776,16 @@ simple:
idle:
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ /*
+ * We came here only when there is no more tasks on rq (top-half of
+ * pick_next_task()), and we are now going to pull some fair entities.
+ *
+ * Since prev is still the current on rq, clear it's resched-flag so
+ * we would be able to know when we got a new resched-request during
+ * idle_balance(), check below for more details.
+ */
+ clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);
+
idle_enter_fair(rq);
/*
* We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
@@ -4784,7 +4794,18 @@ idle:
rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(rq);
if (idle_balance(rq)) { /* drops rq->lock */
rq->idle_stamp = 0;
- goto again;
+ /*
+ * Before we start to pick one of the pulled fair entities, take
+ * care if some RT/DL tasks has been enqueued during the time
+ * we release rq-lock inside idle_balance().
+ *
+ * In such cases, since clear_tsk_need_resched() was done
+ * already, need_resched() will imply the request to sched-in
+ * the enqueued RT/DL tasks, so don't 'goto again' to make sure
+ * the priority.
+ */
+ if (rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.h_nr_running || !need_resched())
+ goto again;
}
#endif
--
1.7.9.5
next reply other threads:[~2014-02-14 4:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-14 4:54 Michael wang [this message]
2014-02-14 12:38 ` [RFC PATCH] sched: make sure sched-priority after invoke idle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-17 3:31 ` Michael wang
2014-02-17 11:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-18 2:42 ` Michael wang
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=52FDA18D.40100@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@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