[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253304203.10538.64.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:03:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@....com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prevent immediate process rescheduling
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 21:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > index 652e8bd..4fad08f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > @@ -353,11 +353,25 @@ static void __dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > static struct sched_entity *__pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> > {
> > struct rb_node *left = cfs_rq->rb_leftmost;
> > + struct sched_entity *se, *curr;
> >
> > if (!left)
> > return NULL;
> >
> > - return rb_entry(left, struct sched_entity, run_node);
> > + se = rb_entry(left, struct sched_entity, run_node);
> > + curr = ¤t->se;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Don't select the entity who just tried to schedule away
> > + * if there's another entity available.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(se == curr && cfs_rq->nr_running > 1)) {
> > + struct rb_node *next_node = rb_next(&curr->run_node);
> > + if (next_node)
> > + se = rb_entry(next_node, struct sched_entity, run_node);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return se;
> > }
Really hate this change though,. doesn't seem right to not pick the same
task again if its runnable. Bad for cache footprint.
The scenario is quite common for stuff like:
CPU0 CPU1
set_task_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
if (cond)
goto out;
<--- ttwu()
schedule();
--
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