[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150205152144.GM21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:21:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched/rt: Use IPI to trigger RT task push migration
instead of pulling
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 02:39:06PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> The problem is that if you have 100 CPUs having an RT task schedule out
> (just like cyclictest -d0 -t -i100 does a lot), and if there's one rq
> that has more than one RT task scheduled on it (overloaded), each
> of those 100 CPUs are going to try to get that second RT task on that
> lonely rq, and each of those 100 CPUs are going to take that lonely
> rq's lock! Then what happens if the task running on that rq wants to
> schedule? Well, it needs to wait behind 100 CPUs contending for its rq
> lock, and we see a HUGE latency (1ms or more).
>
> What does this patch do instead? Instead of trying to fight for the rq,
> if it sees that there's an overloaded rq, it simply sends an IPI to
> that CPU to have it push the overloaded RT task off to another CPU.
So can't we flip the problem around; 99 overloaded cpus and 1 going
'low', then we IPI the 99, and they're all going to try and push their
tasks on the one (now) sad cpu?
--
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