[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070220222508.A14789@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:25:09 -0800
From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] sched: fix idle load balancing in softirqd context
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 09:42:16AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> > - int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > + int cpu = smp_processor_id(), idle_at_tick = idle_cpu(cpu);
> > struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> >
>
> But I would recommend that the idle_at_tick should be on a separate line.
Ok.
> I'll try to look deeper at your patches tomorrow. I've also found that I'm
> having some latency problems in -rt that I think might be related to
> migration.
There is one more issue, I have observed in -rt tree.
raise_softirq_irqoff() is unconditionally doing the wakeup_softirqd()
But unless the CONFIG_PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS is configured, do_softirq()
will process the softirq's like TIMER_SOFTIRQ and SCHED_SOFTIRQ in the
process context. So it looks like we are unnecessarily waking the
softirqd's corresponding to those softirq's.
thanks,
suresh
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists