[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170424084318.2d03700f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:43:18 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:51:54 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 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?
Probably. I didn't know we had a generic one. Where is it?
$ git grep test_and_set |grep trylock
fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c:#define trylock_metapage(mp) test_and_set_bit_lock(META_locked, &(mp)->flag)
I don't think the above is what you mean.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists