[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <541C259E.4010207@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:46:22 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"juri.lelli@...il.com" <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
"raistlin@...ux.it" <raistlin@...ux.it>,
"michael@...rulasolutions.com" <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
"fchecconi@...il.com" <fchecconi@...il.com>,
"vincent@...out.info" <vincent@...out.info>,
"luca.abeni@...tn.it" <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched/deadline: fix bandwidth check/update when migrating
tasks between exclusive cpusets
Hi Daniel,
On 19/09/14 12:47, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/19/2014 11:22 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> Exclusive cpusets are the only way users can restrict SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
>> affinity (performing what is commonly called clustered scheduling).
>> Unfortunately, such thing is currently broken for two reasons:
>>
>> - No check is performed when the user tries to attach a task to
>> an exlusive cpuset (recall that exclusive cpusets have an
>> associated maximum allowed bandwidth).
>>
>> - Bandwidths of source and destination cpusets are not correctly
>> updated after a task is migrated between them.
>>
>> This patch fixes both things at once, as they are opposite faces
>> of the same coin.
>>
>> The check is performed in cpuset_can_attach(), as there aren't any
>> points of failure after that function. The updated is split in two
>> halves. We first reserve bandwidth in the destination cpuset, after
>> we pass the check in cpuset_can_attach(). And we then release
>> bandwidth from the source cpuset when the task's affinity is
>> actually changed. Even if there can be time windows when sched_setattr()
>> may erroneously fail in the source cpuset, we are fine with it, as
>> we can't perfom an atomic update of both cpusets at once.
>>
>> Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
>
> Ack
>
> I have no special test for this, I just let my test running which was
> fixed by patch #1. Works fine though. I'll plan to write some test for this.
>
Ok, thanks. Just mind that the problem fixed by patch 3/3 may sometime
affect this too. I should have definitely put 3/3 on top of the patchset :/.
Thanks,
- Juri
--
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