[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311929043.3938.1595.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:44:03 +0800
From: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Remove WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature check in
entity_tick
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:20 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:18 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > > Nah, if there is 1 runnable task it will always run, preemption simply
> > > doesn't matter. There's nothing to preempt it with.
> >
> > Hmmm, so the newly waked task could be scheduled a little later.
> > That means schedule tick judge everything.
>
> Oh, are you referring to the case where a task gets woken on an idle
> remote cpu?
Yong means the case below.
At (n tick) there is only 1 task, then another task is woken before
(n+1) tick.
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 15:46 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
>
> Just set_tsk_need_resched(p) if p's slice is over, thus:
>
> (n tick) ---> (n+1 tick)
> set_tsk_need_resched(p);
> another task Q is awaked
>
> If we don't have !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT), Q maybe will wait
> for tick coming to get scheduled. If we have
> !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT), Q will get scheduled when some event
> happen, like IRQ.
--
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