[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimVz3pFEHNs-eqXwV8BGsDYpKoREg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 19:31:17 -0700
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 08/15] sched: migrate throttled tasks on HOTPLUG
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 20:03 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
>> Throttled tasks are invisisble to cpu-offline since they are not eligible for
>> selection by pick_next_task(). The regular 'escape' path for a thread that is
>> blocked at offline is via ttwu->select_task_rq, however this will not handle a
>> throttled group since there are no individual thread wakeups on an unthrottle.
>>
>> Resolve this by unthrottling offline cpus so that threads can be migrated.
>
> Fair enough, the flip side is that they all can again increase their
> debt by a whole tick, right?
>
In the case where they enqueue on to a new rq and we can't catch the
bw condition until entity_tick I suppose it's possible to grab up to
an extra tick.
This is actually analogous to a task waking up when other cpus have
drained quota -- this case can be properly handled by an explicit
check/throttle in the enqueue_task_fair() path in the non-on-cpu case.
Will add.
--
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