[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190807174026.31242-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:40:23 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] sched/fair: Active balancer RT/DL preemption fix
Vincent's load balance rework [1] got me thinking about how and where we
use rq.nr_running vs rq.cfs.h_nr_running checks, and this lead me to
stare intently at the active load balancer.
I haven't seen it happen (yet), but from reading the code it really looks
like we can have some scenarios where the cpu_stopper ends up preempting
a > CFS class task.
- Patch 1 is a preparatory code move
- Patch 2 is the actual fix
- Patch 3 is a related fix for the cpu_stopper function
This is based on top of today's tip/sched/core:
a1dc0446d649 ("sched/core: Silence a warning in sched_init()")
@Vincent: I don't think this should conflict too badly with your rework,
but if you have any issues I'll try to give you a version rebased on top
of the rework.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1564670424-26023-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
Valentin Schneider (3):
sched/fair: Move active balance logic to its own function
sched/fair: Prevent active LB from preempting higher sched classes
sched/fair: Check for CFS tasks in active_load_balance_cpu_stop()
kernel/sched/fair.c | 130 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
--
2.22.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists