Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 06 Jun, 2008 4 commits
    • Gregory Haskins's avatar
      sched: fix SCHED_OTHER balance iterator to include all tasks · 6d299f1b
      Gregory Haskins authored 
      The currently logic inadvertently skips the last task on the run-queue,
resulting in missed balance opportunities.
Signed-off-by: default avatarGregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Bahi <dbahi@novell.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      6d299f1b
    • Gregory Haskins's avatar
      sched: use a 2-d bitmap for searching lowest-pri CPU · 6e0534f2
      Gregory Haskins authored 
      The current code use a linear algorithm which causes scaling issues
on larger SMP machines.  This patch replaces that algorithm with a
2-dimensional bitmap to reduce latencies in the wake-up path.
Signed-off-by: default avatarGregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Acked-by: default avatarSteven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      6e0534f2
    • Mike Galbraith's avatar
      sched: make !hrtick faster · f333fdc9
      Mike Galbraith authored 
      it is safe to ignore timers and flags when the feature is disabled.
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      f333fdc9
    • Gregory Haskins's avatar
      sched: prioritize non-migratable tasks over migratable ones · 45c01e82
      Gregory Haskins authored 
      Dmitry Adamushko pointed out a known flaw in the rt-balancing algorithm
that could allow suboptimal balancing if a non-migratable task gets
queued behind a running migratable one.  It is discussed in this thread:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/22/296

This issue has been further exacerbated by a recent checkin to
sched-devel (git-id 5eee63a5ebc19a870ac40055c0be49457f3a89a3).

>From a pure priority standpoint, the run-queue is doing the "right"
thing. Using Dmitry's nomenclature, if T0 is on cpu1 first, and T1
wakes up at equal or lower priority (affined only to cpu1) later, it
*should* wait for T0 to finish.  However, in reality that is likely
suboptimal from a system perspective if there are other cores that
could allow T0 and T1 to run concurrently.  Since T1 can not migrate,
the only choice for higher concurrency is to try to move T0.  This is
not something we addessed in the recent rt-balancing re-work.

This patch tries to enhance the balancing algorithm by accomodating this
scenario.  It accomplishes this by incorporating the migratability of a
task into its priority calculation.  Within a numerical tsk->prio, a
non-migratable task is logically higher than a migratable one.  We
maintain this by introducing a new per-priority queue (xqueue, or
exclusive-queue) for holding non-migratable tasks.  The scheduler will
draw from the xqueue over the standard shared-queue (squeue) when
available.

There are several details for utilizing this properly.

1) During task-wake-up, we not only need to check if the priority
   preempts the current task, but we also need to check for this
   non-migratable condition.  Therefore, if a non-migratable task wakes
   up and sees an equal priority migratable task already running, it
   will attempt to preempt it *if* there is a likelyhood that the
   current task will find an immediate home.

2) Tasks only get this non-migratable "priority boost" on wake-up.  Any
   requeuing will result in the non-migratable task being queued to the
   end of the shared queue.  This is an attempt to prevent the system
   from being completely unfair to migratable tasks during things like
   SCHED_RR timeslicing.

I am sure this patch introduces potentially "odd" behavior if you
concoct a scenario where a bunch of non-migratable threads could starve
migratable ones given the right pattern.  I am not yet convinced that
this is a problem since we are talking about tasks of equal RT priority
anyway, and there never is much in the way of guarantees against
starvation under that scenario anyway. (e.g. you could come up with a
similar scenario with a specific timing environment verses an affinity
environment).  I can be convinced otherwise, but for now I think this is
"ok".
Signed-off-by: default avatarGregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      45c01e82
  3. 05 Jun, 2008 36 commits
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7