linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Do not release current rq lock on non contended double_lock_balance()
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:14:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160615111453.GG30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160614140228.0ecf15af@grimm.local.home>

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:02:28PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > For instance; pull_rt_task() does:
> > 
> > 	for_each_cpu() {
> > 		double_lock_balance(this, that);
> > 		...
> > 		double_unlock_balance(this, that);
> > 	}
> > 
> > Which, with the trylock, ends up with a max possible hold time of
> > O(nr_cpus).
> 
> Sure, but I think we should try to limit that loop too, because that
> loop itself is what is triggering the large latency for me, because
> it constantly releases a spinlock and has to wait. This loop is done
> with preemption disabled.

OK, so should not the whole HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI thing have avoided that
loop entirely? And therefore made the point moot?

In any case, can't we add another cpupri for pushable tasks and use that
to find the highest priority task to pull and avoid the loop thus?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-15 11:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-13 16:37 Steven Rostedt
2016-06-14 11:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-14 17:52   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-14 18:02   ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-14 19:42     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-15 11:14     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-06-15 16:13       ` Steven Rostedt

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=20160615111453.GG30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=williams@redhat.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] sched: Do not release current rq lock on non contended double_lock_balance()' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).