From: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v0] sched: change how RT task is picked in pull_rt_task()
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 00:44:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimPjYmnBjvRc8Q2hUxiAw3bbr3FRA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
When pulling RT task for a given run-queue, the method to pick RT task
is changed from pick_next_highest_task_rt() to
pick_next_pushable_task(). Though job could be done with both, the
former could be replaced since plist_first_entry() is simpler and
faster.
Based on the simplicity, then the racy before and WARN_ON after
run-queue lock could be removed.
Signed-off-by: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>
---
--- a/kernel/sched_rt.c 2011-04-27 11:48:50.000000000 +0800
+++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c 2011-05-21 00:34:18.000000000 +0800
@@ -1434,64 +1434,19 @@ static int pull_rt_task(struct rq *this_
continue;
src_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
-
- /*
- * Don't bother taking the src_rq->lock if the next highest
- * task is known to be lower-priority than our current task.
- * This may look racy, but if this value is about to go
- * logically higher, the src_rq will push this task away.
- * And if its going logically lower, we do not care
- */
- if (src_rq->rt.highest_prio.next >=
- this_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr)
- continue;
-
- /*
- * We can potentially drop this_rq's lock in
- * double_lock_balance, and another CPU could
- * alter this_rq
- */
double_lock_balance(this_rq, src_rq);
- /*
- * Are there still pullable RT tasks?
- */
- if (src_rq->rt.rt_nr_running <= 1)
+ p = pick_next_pushable_task(src_rq);
+ if (!p ||
+ !cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed) ||
+ !(p->prio < this_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr))
goto skip;
- p = pick_next_highest_task_rt(src_rq, this_cpu);
+ ret++;
+ deactivate_task(src_rq, p, 0);
+ set_task_cpu(p, this_cpu);
+ activate_task(this_rq, p, 0);
- /*
- * Do we have an RT task that preempts
- * the to-be-scheduled task?
- */
- if (p && (p->prio < this_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr)) {
- WARN_ON(p == src_rq->curr);
- WARN_ON(!p->se.on_rq);
-
- /*
- * There's a chance that p is higher in priority
- * than what's currently running on its cpu.
- * This is just that p is wakeing up and hasn't
- * had a chance to schedule. We only pull
- * p if it is lower in priority than the
- * current task on the run queue
- */
- if (p->prio < src_rq->curr->prio)
- goto skip;
-
- ret = 1;
-
- deactivate_task(src_rq, p, 0);
- set_task_cpu(p, this_cpu);
- activate_task(this_rq, p, 0);
- /*
- * We continue with the search, just in
- * case there's an even higher prio task
- * in another runqueue. (low likelihood
- * but possible)
- */
- }
skip:
double_unlock_balance(this_rq, src_rq);
}
reply other threads:[~2011-05-20 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BANLkTimPjYmnBjvRc8Q2hUxiAw3bbr3FRA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dhillf@gmail.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®