[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTintLhxVQvbmt6oJQ9Zbcmen7yL3ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 20:57:50 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: [PATCH] sched: change pull_rt_task() to decrease time waiting on runqueue
It is changed to be pushing RT task, then the pushable tasks on other
runqueus have chances to reach all CPUS whose runqueus are lower in
priority, which is not covered by pull since only one runqueue is
considered in pull for accepting tasks on other runqueues. Thus the
time of pushable tasks waiting on runqueue could be decreased.
Thanks all comments in preparing this work.
Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
---
--- a/kernel/sched_rt.c 2011-04-27 11:48:50.000000000 +0800
+++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c 2011-05-18 20:29:26.000000000 +0800
@@ -1423,77 +1423,13 @@ static void push_rt_tasks(struct rq *rq)
static int pull_rt_task(struct rq *this_rq)
{
int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu, ret = 0, cpu;
- struct task_struct *p;
- struct rq *src_rq;
if (likely(!rt_overloaded(this_rq)))
return 0;
for_each_cpu(cpu, this_rq->rd->rto_mask) {
- if (this_cpu == cpu)
- continue;
-
- src_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
-
- /*
- * Don't bother taking the src_rq->lock if the next highest
- * task is known to be lower-priority than our current task.
- * This may look racy, but if this value is about to go
- * logically higher, the src_rq will push this task away.
- * And if its going logically lower, we do not care
- */
- if (src_rq->rt.highest_prio.next >=
- this_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr)
- continue;
-
- /*
- * We can potentially drop this_rq's lock in
- * double_lock_balance, and another CPU could
- * alter this_rq
- */
- double_lock_balance(this_rq, src_rq);
-
- /*
- * Are there still pullable RT tasks?
- */
- if (src_rq->rt.rt_nr_running <= 1)
- goto skip;
-
- p = pick_next_highest_task_rt(src_rq, this_cpu);
-
- /*
- * Do we have an RT task that preempts
- * the to-be-scheduled task?
- */
- if (p && (p->prio < this_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr)) {
- WARN_ON(p == src_rq->curr);
- WARN_ON(!p->se.on_rq);
-
- /*
- * There's a chance that p is higher in priority
- * than what's currently running on its cpu.
- * This is just that p is wakeing up and hasn't
- * had a chance to schedule. We only pull
- * p if it is lower in priority than the
- * current task on the run queue
- */
- if (p->prio < src_rq->curr->prio)
- goto skip;
-
- ret = 1;
-
- deactivate_task(src_rq, p, 0);
- set_task_cpu(p, this_cpu);
- activate_task(this_rq, p, 0);
- /*
- * We continue with the search, just in
- * case there's an even higher prio task
- * in another runqueue. (low likelihood
- * but possible)
- */
- }
-skip:
- double_unlock_balance(this_rq, src_rq);
+ if (this_cpu != cpu)
+ ret += push_rt_task(cpu_rq(cpu));
}
return ret;
--
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