[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54bebe28-1d6d-5f71-da57-deb2eee111d3@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:56:09 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
qais.yousef@....com, swood@...hat.com, valentin.schneider@....com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vincent.donnefort@....com, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 15/17] sched: Fix migrate_disable() vs rt/dl balancing
On 05/10/2020 16:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1859,7 +1859,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_pus
> * running task can migrate over to a CPU that is running a task
> * of lesser priority.
> */
> -static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
> +static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq, bool pull)
> {
> struct task_struct *next_task;
> struct rq *lowest_rq;
> @@ -1873,6 +1873,34 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
> return 0;
>
> retry:
> + if (is_migration_disabled(next_task)) {
> + struct task_struct *push_task = NULL;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (!pull || rq->push_busy)
> + return 0;
Shouldn't there be the same functionality in push_dl_task(), i.e.
returning 0 earlier for a task with migration_disabled?
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists