[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1191942029.6848.15.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:00:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
kravetz@...ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
pmorreale@...ell.com, sdietrich@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] RT: scheduler fixes and rt_overload enhancements
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:25 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The first two patches are from Mike and Steven on LKML, which the rest of my
> series is dependent on. Patch #4 is a resend from earlier.
>
> Series Summary:
>
> 1) Send IPI on overload regardless of whether prev is an RT task
> 2) Set the NEEDS_RESCHED flag on reception of RESCHED_IPI
> 3) Fix a mistargeted IPI on overload
> 4) Track which CPUS are in overload for efficiency
> 5) Track which CPUs are eligible for rebalancing for efficiency
>
> These have been built and boot-tested on a 4-core Intel system.
Ok, I'm not liking these.
I really hate setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED from the IPI handler. Also, I
don't see how doing a resched pulls tasks to begin with.
How about keeping a per rq variable that indicates the highest priority
of runnable tasks. And on forced preemption look for a target rq to send
your last highest task to.
There is no need to broadcast rebalance, that will only serialise on the
local rq lock again. So pick a target rq, and stick with that.
Also, I think you meant to use cpus_and() with the rto and allowed
masks.
-
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