[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151202141655.GE14766@lerouge>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:16:56 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched: Account rr and fifo tasks separately
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:53:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 03:22:06PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > In order to evaluate tick dependency, we need to account SCHED_RR and
> > SCHED_FIFO tasks separately as those policies don't have the same
> > preemption requirements.
> >
> > We still keep rt_nr_running as a cache to avoid additions between nr_rr
> > and nr_fifo all over the place.
>
> In which case you only need one of nr_fifo/nr_rr. Less accounting is
> better.
>
> Pick the one you need for the nohz_full condition, and leave the other.
> A quick look at sched_can_stop_tick() seems to suggest nr_rr is the
> interesting one. nr_rr < 2 should allow stopping the tick.
Sounds pretty good! I'm going to do that!
Thanks!
--
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