From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753197AbcFOQN6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:13:58 -0400 Received: from smtprelay0025.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.25]:32874 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751614AbcFOQN5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:13:57 -0400 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:2691:2693:2917:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3867:3868:3870:3872:3873:3874:4250:5007:6119:6261:7875:7901:10004:10400:10848:10967:11026:11232:11473:11658:11914:12114:12517:12519:12663:12740:13069:13255:13311:13357:13439:14096:14097:14181:14659:14721:21080:21324:21326,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: arm14_220b77b00a062 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1947 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:13:53 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Clark Williams , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Do not release current rq lock on non contended double_lock_balance() Message-ID: <20160615121353.7194c68b@grimm.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20160615111453.GG30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20160613123732.3a8ccc57@gandalf.local.home> <20160614115820.GD30921@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160614140228.0ecf15af@grimm.local.home> <20160615111453.GG30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:14:53 +0200 Peter Zijlstra 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