From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.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 12:13:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160615121353.7194c68b@grimm.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160615111453.GG30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:14:53 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> OK, so should not the whole HAVE_RT_PUSH_IPI thing have avoided that
> loop entirely? And therefore made the point moot?
I believe there was another issue that we had in our tests. But I don't
have the trace available with me. I'll rerun the tests when I get back
home and have some more concrete examples for you.
>
> 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?
I thought about this too, but I was a bit concerned about complexities
this would add. But I can look into it. Currently I'm in NYC for
personal reasons and will take a look at this when I get back.
-- Steve
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-15 16:13 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
2016-06-15 16:13 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
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=20160615121353.7194c68b@grimm.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).