[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110801013341.GA26768@zhy>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:33:41 +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 01:45:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:46 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > 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.
>
> But that's exactly what wakeup preemption is about, waking tasks don't
> get to preempt running tasks. So no doing that preemption is exactly
> right for !WAKEUP_PREEMPT.
>
> Anyway, I've queued the removal patch since that removes all
> confusion ;-)
Yup, that sounds good. Thanks Peter.
-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