[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <370e4908-eb8a-74d5-b771-8e657c3b6461@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 14:37:53 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Zhang Qiao <zhangqiao22@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com,
vschneid@...hat.com, rkagan@...zon.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated
On 14/03/2023 14:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 14/03/2023 13:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 08:41:30AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
>> So when a task is not running for a long time (our case at hand), then
>> there's two cases:
>>
>> - it wakes up locally and place_entity() gets to reset vruntime;
>> - it wakes up remotely and migrate_task_rq_fair() can reset vruntime.
>>
>> So if we can rely on ENQUEUE_MIGRATED to differentiate between these
>> cases, when wouldn't something like this work?
>
> I guess so. We would avoid rq_clock_task skews or to be forced to pass
> state that migrating se's vruntime is too old.
... just saw Vincent's reply ... I forgot the limitation that we can't
all rq_clock_task() in migrate_task_rq_fair() again.
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists