[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110729084637.GC12106@zhy>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:46:37 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.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, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:20:50AM +0200, 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?
Not really.
Let's take UP for example, we have cpu-hug task A and threadirq B.
n tick ---> n+1 tick
set_tsk_need_resched(A);
B comes in and
wake up thread-B;
So for system on which we disable WAKEUP_PREEMPT,
if we don't have that check, thread-B will wait until n+1 tick comes
to get to run.
But if we have that check, thread-B will get to run after IRQ-B returns.
Thanks,
Yong
--
Only stand for myself
--
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