[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292526220.2708.55.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 20:03:40 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched: Reduce ttwu rq->lock contention
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 19:58 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > + * Since we've already set TASK_WAKING this task's CPU cannot
> > > + * change from under us.
> >
> > I think it can. Yes, we've set TASK_WAKING. But, at least the task
> > itself can change its state back to TASK_RUNNING without calling
> > schedule. Say, __wait_event()-like code.
>
> Oh crud, you're right, that's going to make all this cmpxchg stuff lots
> more interesting :/
Hrmph, we can add a task_is_waking() test to the rq->lock in schedule(),
like we have for __task_rq_lock():
local_irq_save(flags);
again:
while (task_is_waking(current))
cpu_relax();
raw_spin_lock(rq->lock);
if (task_is_waking(current)) {
raw_spin_unlock(rq->lock);
goto again;
}
But that's not particularly pretty...
--
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