[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1406246651.2970.841.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 17:04:11 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
tkhai@...dex.ru
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] sched/fair: Remove double_lock_balance() from
active_load_balance_cpu_stop()
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 15:30 +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> Bad situation:
>
> double_lock_balance() drops busiest_rq lock. The busiest_rq is *busiest*,
> and a lot of tasks and context switches there. We are dropping the lock
> and waiting for it again.
>
> Let's just detach the task and once finally unlock it!
>
> Warning: this admits unlocked using of can_migrate_task(), throttled_lb_pair(),
> and task_hot(). I added comments about that.
>
Wonder if we should also consider removing double_lock_balance usage
from rt.c and deadline.c? Then those two schedulers will also not
lock both the source and destination queues at the same time
for load balancing.
Tim
--
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