[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100520221742.GB20946@think>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 18:17:42 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, axboe@...nel.dk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] reduce runqueue lock contention
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:23:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 23:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > int try_to_wake_up(struct task *p, unsigned int mask, wake_flags)
> > {
> > int state = atomic_read(&p->state);
> >
> > do {
> > if (!(state & mask))
> > return 0;
> >
> > state = atomic_cmpxchg(&p->state, state, TASK_WAKING);
> > } while (state != TASK_WAKING);
>
> cpu = select_task_rq()
>
> and then somehow see we get set_task_cpu() done without races :-)
>
> > /* do this pending queue + ipi thing */
> >
> > return 1;
> > }
I tried not to set the task waking, since I was worried about races with
us getting queued somewhere else. But, I don't have a good handle on
all of that so I kind of chickened out. That's why my code falls back
to the full ttwu in a few cases.
Do you think the above could be an addition to my patch or that it's
required for my patch to work well?
-chris
--
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