[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46B1FC6D.7010202@felicis.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:46:53 +0200
From: Martin Roehricht <ml@...icis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Scheduling the highest priority task
On 08/02/2007 05:19 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Martin Roehricht <ml@...icis.org> wrote:
>
>> That's fine with me, that within the same priority-queue any task can
>> be chosen. But assume two tasks with highly different priorities, such
>> as 105 and 135 are scheduled on the same processor and one of them is
>> now to be migrated -- shouldn't be the queue with task P=105
>> considered first for migration by this code? Both tasks would use
>> different queues with their own linked lists, right?
>
> yes. What makes you believe that the lower priority one (prio 135) is
> chosen? [ as i said before, that will only be chosen if all tasks in the
> higher-priority queue (prio 105) are either already running on a CPU or
> have recently run so that the cache-hot logic skips them. ]
This believe is primarily based on my observations of multiple benchmark
runs and also on your statement earlier: »in the SMP migration code, the
'old scheduler' indeed picks the lowest priority one«.
Perhaps it is just an unfortunate coincidence that at ~90% of the time a
migration decision is made, the higher priority process is currently
cache hot whereas the lower priority process is not. That would be
unlucky for me as I would like to decide upon specific runtime
circumstances whether the highest or the lowest priority job of a
runqueue should be migrated to another CPU. :-/
Martin
-
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