[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xhsmhv8sq5nyx.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:56:38 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Schspa Shi <schspa@...il.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhaohui.shi@...izon.ai,
Schspa Shi <schspa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix bad task migration for rt tasks
On 24/06/22 02:29, Schspa Shi wrote:
> @@ -1998,12 +1998,15 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
> * the mean time, task could have
> * migrated already or had its affinity changed.
> * Also make sure that it wasn't scheduled on its rq.
> + * It is possible the task has running for a while,
> + * And we check task migration disable flag again.
> */
> if (unlikely(task_rq(task) != rq ||
> !cpumask_test_cpu(lowest_rq->cpu, &task->cpus_mask) ||
cf. 95158a89dd50 ("sched,rt: Use the full cpumask for balancing"), this
made sense to me back then but not so much anymore... Shouldn't this have
remained a ->cpus_ptr check?
I'm going to revisit that commit, I evicted too much of it.
> task_running(rq, task) ||
> !rt_task(task) ||
> - !task_on_rq_queued(task))) {
> + !task_on_rq_queued(task) ||
> + is_migration_disabled(task))) {
>
> double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
> lowest_rq = NULL;
> --
> 2.24.3 (Apple Git-128)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists