[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1335830115-14335-33-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 01:55:06 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linaro-sched-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 32/41] sched: Update rq clock on tickless CPUs before calling check_preempt_curr()
check_preempt_wakeup() of fair class needs an uptodate sched clock
value to update runtime stats of the current task.
When a task is woken up, activate_task() is usually called right before
ttwu_do_wakeup() unless the task is already in the runqueue. In this
case we need to update the rq clock manually in case the CPU runs
tickless because ttwu_do_wakeup() calls check_preempt_wakeup().
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>
Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc: Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
Cc: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index a7e611a..949158a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -1474,6 +1474,12 @@ static int ttwu_remote(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
if (p->on_rq) {
+ /*
+ * Ensure check_preempt_curr() won't deal with a stale value
+ * of rq clock if the CPU is tickless. BTW do we actually need
+ * check_preempt_curr() to be called here?
+ */
+ update_nohz_rq_clock(rq);
ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, wake_flags);
ret = 1;
}
@@ -1683,8 +1689,17 @@ static void try_to_wake_up_local(struct task_struct *p)
if (!(p->state & TASK_NORMAL))
goto out;
- if (!p->on_rq)
+ if (!p->on_rq) {
ttwu_activate(rq, p, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * Even if the task is on the runqueue we still
+ * need to ensure check_preempt_curr() won't
+ * deal with a stale rq clock value on a tickless
+ * CPU
+ */
+ update_nohz_rq_clock(rq);
+ }
ttwu_do_wakeup(rq, p, 0);
ttwu_stat(p, smp_processor_id(), 0);
--
1.7.5.4
--
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