[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240429121422.GU30852@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:14:22 +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 Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:32:49PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-04-27 at 08:42 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-04-26 at 18:03 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > fwiw, tbench liked the previous version better.
> >
> > The culprit lies somewhere in the new PREEMPT_SHORT patch.
>
> <squint>
>
> Ah, moving the curr eligibility check into pick_curr() left an
> ineligible curr to be seen/used further down in pick_eevdf().
>
> found:
> if (!best || (curr && entity_before(curr, best)))
> best = curr;
Hmm yes, over aggressive cleanup that. Let me try again.
> Nit: PREEMPT_SHORT depending on RUN_TO_PARITY looks odd.
The thinking was that without RUN_TO_PARITY we'll always do a full pick
and it will always pick a (new) shorter deadline task over current.
The PREEMPRT_SHORT thing really is an exception to avoid RUN_TO_PARITY
from ruining latency game for short tasks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists