[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307110767.3667.51.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:19:27 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix conflict of schedule domain balance in RT
scheduling
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 21:58 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> And checking for cache-hot is also added to confirm the comment there.
Please read that comment.
> cpu = task_cpu(p);
> @@ -1253,7 +1253,8 @@ static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> * We prioritize the last cpu that the task executed on since
> * it is most likely cache-hot in that location.
> */
> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, lowest_mask))
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, lowest_mask) &&
> + task_hot(task, task_rq(task)->clock_task, NULL))
> return cpu;
What task_hot() checks for and what we are assuming are two different
things. In fact, we can disable task_hot() so it always fails. That's
not what we want.
If the task happens to have ran on a CPU that is in the lowest_mask, we
want that CPU. Time may not matter. If we know a task ran on a
particular CPU last, we want to run it there if possible. It may still
have cache lines for it, even if it has been a long time since it last
ran.
-- Steve
--
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