[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221027081630.34081-1-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 16:16:30 +0800
From: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joshdon@...gle.com,
Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: favor non-idle group in tick preemption
The non-idle se dominates competition vs the idle se when they
are belong to the same group. We ensure that idle groups would not
preempt non-idle group in wakeup preemption(see check_preempt_wakeup()).
However, this can happen in tick preemption, since check_preempt_tick()
dose not check current/se is idle or not. This patch adds this check.
Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index e4a0b8bd941c..f3324b8753b3 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4750,6 +4750,7 @@ static void
check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
{
unsigned long ideal_runtime, delta_exec;
+ int cse_is_idle, pse_is_idle;
struct sched_entity *se;
s64 delta;
@@ -4779,8 +4780,17 @@ check_preempt_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr)
if (delta < 0)
return;
- if (delta > ideal_runtime)
+ if (delta > ideal_runtime) {
+ /*
+ * Favor non-idle group even in tick preemption
+ */
+ cse_is_idle = se_is_idle(curr);
+ pse_is_idle = se_is_idle(se);
+ if (unlikely(!cse_is_idle && pse_is_idle))
+ return;
+
resched_curr(rq_of(cfs_rq));
+ }
}
static void
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists