[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240425112855.GF21980@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:28:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wuyun.abel@...edance.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/10] sched/fair: Implement delayed dequeue
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 06:24:59PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> The root cause seems to be doing the delay dequeue business on
> exiting tasks.
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5374,6 +5374,7 @@ dequeue_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, st
> update_curr(cfs_rq);
>
> if (sched_feat(DELAY_DEQUEUE) && sleep &&
> + !(entity_is_task(se) && (task_of(se)->flags & PF_EXITING)) &&
> !entity_eligible(cfs_rq, se)) {
> if (cfs_rq->next == se)
> cfs_rq->next = NULL;
So I think this can be easier done in dequeue_task_fair(), where we
still know this is a task.
Perhaps something like (I'll test later):
if (p->flags & PF_EXITING)
flags &= ~DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
But now I need to go think about the case of removing a cgroup...
*urgh*.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists