[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090225111355.GD15453@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:13:55 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: miaox@...fujitsu.com, Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix unfairness when upgrade weight
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > @@ -1690,6 +1690,15 @@ static void task_new_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > static void prio_changed_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
> > int oldprio, int running)
> > {
> > + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p);
> > + struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
> > + int on_rq = se->on_rq;
> > +
> > + if (p->prio < oldprio && on_rq) {
> > + dequeue_entity(cfs_rq, se, 0);
> > + se->vruntime = cfs_rq->min_vruntime + sched_vslice(cfs_rq, se);
> > + enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se, 0);
> > + }
>
> we very likely just enqueued the thing, and now we dequeue/enqueue
> again.. not very nice.
but priority-change is a slowpath, so it shouldnt matter much,
should it?
Ingo
--
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