[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181005154632.GA18077@andrea>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2018 17:46:32 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@....com.cn>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info
Hi Peng,
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 06:22:11AM +0800, Peng Hao wrote:
> find_lock_lowest_rq may or not releease rq lock when return
> lowest_rq=NULL, but it is fuzzy.
> If not releasing rq lock, it is unnecessary to re-call
> pick_next_pushable_task.
IIRC, deadline.c uses a similar pattern (c.f., find_lock_later_rq() and
pick_next_pushable_dl_task()): should it be considered for this change?
Andrea
> When CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, not releasing rq lock and return
> lowest_rq=null frequently happens in a simple test case:
> Four different rt priority tasks run on limited two cpus.
> Thanks for Steven Rostedt's advice.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@....com.cn>
> ---
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 2e2955a..be0fc43 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1754,7 +1754,7 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
> !task_on_rq_queued(task))) {
>
> double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
> - lowest_rq = NULL;
> + lowest_rq = RETRY_TASK;
> break;
> }
> }
> @@ -1830,7 +1830,9 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
>
> /* find_lock_lowest_rq locks the rq if found */
> lowest_rq = find_lock_lowest_rq(next_task, rq);
> - if (!lowest_rq) {
> + if (!lowest_rq)
> + goto out;
> + if (lowest_rq == RETRY_TASK) {
> struct task_struct *task;
> /*
> * find_lock_lowest_rq releases rq->lock
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists