[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170424085154.d6ny6vmbmuaoxiln@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:51:54 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt
balancing logic
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> When a CPU schedules in a lower priority task and wants to make sure
> overloaded CPUs know about it. It increments the rto_loop_next. Then it does
> an atomic_inc_return() on rto_loop_start. If the returned value is not "1",
> then it does atomic_dec() on rt_loop_start and returns. If the value is "1",
> then it will take the rto_lock to synchronize with a possible IPI being sent
> around to the overloaded CPUs.
> + start = atomic_inc_return(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);
> + if (start != 1)
> + goto out;
> +out:
> + atomic_dec(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);
Did you just write a very expensive test-and-set trylock?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists