[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bae71ff6-e5a3-27bc-c32c-17a096a5c836@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:24:37 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
Subhra Mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/16] Core scheduling v3
On 2019/8/12 23:38, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
>> I have two other small changes that I think are worth sending out.
>>
>> The first simplify logic in pick_task() and the 2nd avoid task pick all
>> over again when max is preempted. I also refined the previous hack patch to
>> make schedule always happen only for root cfs rq. Please see below for
>> details, thanks.
>>
> I see a potential issue here. With the simplification in pick_task,
> you might introduce a livelock where the match logic spins for ever.
> But you avoid that with the patch 2, by removing the loop if a pick
> preempts max. The potential problem is that, you miss a case where
> the newly picked task might have a match in the sibling on which max
> was selected before. By selecting idle, you ignore the potential match.
Oh that's right, I missed this.
> As of now, the potential match check does not really work because,
> sched_core_find will always return the same task and we do not check
> the whole core_tree for a next match. This is in my TODO list to have
> sched_core_find to return the best next match, if match was preempted.
> But its a bit complex and needs more thought.
Sounds worth to do :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists