aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/REPORTING-BUGS
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>2008-06-11 00:58:30 +0200
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>2008-06-18 12:41:18 +0200
commit20b6331bfed1f07ba1e5006889a5d64adc53615e (patch)
tree9a98f9ccd201c875a94f8a2002f1eddcfc114d65 /REPORTING-BUGS
parentf7d62364b2cef85cbcd4feffdd3632ef7c3b61c2 (diff)
sched: rework of "prioritize non-migratable tasks over migratable ones"
regarding this commit: 45c01e824991b2dd0a332e19efc4901acb31209f I think we can do it simpler. Please take a look at the patch below. Instead of having 2 separate arrays (which is + ~800 bytes on x86_32 and twice so on x86_64), let's add "exclusive" (the ones that are bound to this CPU) tasks to the head of the queue and "shared" ones -- to the end. In case of a few newly woken up "exclusive" tasks, they are 'stacked' (not queued as now), meaning that a task {i+1} is being placed in front of the previously woken up task {i}. But I don't think that this behavior may cause any realistic problems. There are a couple of changes on top of this one. (1) in check_preempt_curr_rt() I don't think there is a need for the "pick_next_rt_entity(rq, &rq->rt) != &rq->curr->rt" check. enqueue_task_rt(p) and check_preempt_curr_rt() are always called one after another with rq->lock being held so the following check "p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed == 1 && rq->curr->rt.nr_cpus_allowed != 1" should be enough (well, just its left part) to guarantee that 'p' has been queued in front of the 'curr'. (2) in set_cpus_allowed_rt() I don't thinks there is a need for requeue_task_rt() here. Perhaps, the only case when 'requeue' (+ reschedule) might be useful is as follows: i) weight == 1 && cpu_isset(task_cpu(p), *new_mask) i.e. a task is being bound to this CPU); ii) 'p' != rq->curr but here, 'p' has already been on this CPU for a while and was not migrated. i.e. it's possible that 'rq->curr' would not have high chances to be migrated right at this particular moment (although, has chance in a bit longer term), should we allow it to be preempted. Anyway, I think we should not perhaps make it more complex trying to address some rare corner cases. For instance, that's why a single queue approach would be preferable. Unless I'm missing something obvious, this approach gives us similar functionality at lower cost. Verified only compilation-wise. (Almost)-Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Diffstat (limited to 'REPORTING-BUGS')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions