[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311926191.3938.1586.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:56:31 +0800
From: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Remove WAKEUP_PREEMPT feature check in
entity_tick
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 15:46 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 03:36:15PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > >From another point of view, below !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT) still
> > looks like duplicated.
> >
> > if (cfs_rq->nr_running > 1 || !sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT))
> > check_preempt_tick(cfs_rq, curr);
> >
> > if "!sched_feat(WAKEUP_PREEMPT)" is run,
> > that implies cfs_rq->nr_running == 1.
>
> That's true.
>
> >
> > Why do we need to call check_preempt_tick when there is only 1 task
> > runnable?
>
> 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.
Wow. That's really clear explanation.
Got it now.
Thanks!
>
> Thanks,
> Yong
>
--
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