[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200428230204.GE16027@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 01:02:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Call newidle_balance() from
finish_task_switch()
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:55:03PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 00:09 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, if you move it this late, this is entirely the wrong place. If you
> > do it after the context switch either use the balance_callback or put it
> > in the idle path.
> >
> > But what Valentin said; this needs a fair bit of support, the whole
> > reason we've never done this is to avoid that double context switch...
> >
>
> balance_callback() enters with the rq lock held but BH not separately
BH? softirqs you mean? Pray tell more.
> disabled, which interferes with the ability to enable interrupts but not BH.
> It also gets called from rt_mutex_setprio() and __sched_setscheduler(), and
> I didn't want the caller of those to be stuck with the latency.
You're not reading it right.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists