linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: allow SCHED_BATCH to preempt SCHED

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 22 Feb 2011 21:33:56 -0800
From:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, richard.purdie@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: allow SCHED_BATCH to preempt SCHED_IDLE tasks

On 02/22/2011 08:20 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 13:04 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Perform the test for SCHED_IDLE before testing for SCHED_BATCH (and ensure idle
>> tasks don't preempt idle tasks) so the non-interactive, but still important,
>> SCHED_BATCH tasks will run in favor of the very low priority SCHED_IDLE tasks.
>
> Yeah, that could be construed as a fairness fix for light SCHED_BATCH vs
> a heavy SCHED_IDLE.  It should lower latencies for both when mixed.
>
> Acked-by: Mike Galbraith<efault@....de>
>
> Nit below.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart<dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
>> CC: Peter Zijlstra<peterz@...radead.org>
>> CC: Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu>
>> CC: Richard Purdie<richard.purdie@...uxfoundation.org>
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched_fair.c |   12 +++++++-----
>>   1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
>> index 0c26e2d..ff04bbd 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
>> @@ -1857,16 +1857,18 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_
>>   	if (test_tsk_need_resched(curr))
>>   		return;
>>
>> +	/* Idle tasks are by definition preempted by non-idle tasks. */
>> +	if (unlikely(curr->policy == SCHED_IDLE)&&
>> +	    likely(p->policy != SCHED_IDLE))
>> +		goto preempt;
>> +
>
> if (unlikely(curr->policy == SCHED_IDLE&&  p->policy != curr->policy))
> 	goto preempt;
>
> Looks better to me.

I have no opinion on the unlikely/likely optimizations. I chose the way 
I did as I thought it was more consistent with the existing code. I'll 
leave that to Peter and Ingo - let me know if I should resend.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/