From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/6] sched/dl: Try better placement even for deadline tasks that do not block
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 17:00:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190507160038.GF19434@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190507141338.tnp62joujcrxyv5j@queper01-lin>
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:13:40PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 06 May 2019 at 06:48:33 (+0200), Luca Abeni wrote:
> > @@ -1591,6 +1626,7 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > curr = READ_ONCE(rq->curr); /* unlocked access */
> > + het = static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity);
>
> Nit: not sure how the generated code looks like but I wonder if this
> could potentially make you loose the benefit of the static key ?
I have to take the blame for this bit :-)
I would be surprised the static_key gives us anything here, but that is
actually not the point here. It is purely to know whether we have to be
capacity aware or not. I don't think we are in a critical path and the
variable providing the necessary condition just happened to be a
static_key.
We might be able to make better use of it if we refactor the code a bit.
Morten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-07 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-06 4:48 [RFC PATCH 0/6] Capacity awareness for SCHED_DEADLINE Luca Abeni
2019-05-06 4:48 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] sched/dl: Improve deadline admission control for asymmetric CPU capacities Luca Abeni
2019-05-07 13:48 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-07 13:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2019-05-07 14:02 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-07 14:25 ` luca abeni
2019-05-07 14:31 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-07 14:43 ` luca abeni
2019-07-08 11:22 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-08 15:05 ` Quentin Perret
2019-06-18 16:41 ` Alessio Balsini
2019-05-06 4:48 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] sched/dl: Capacity-aware migrations Luca Abeni
2019-05-07 13:35 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-07 14:17 ` luca abeni
2019-05-07 15:04 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-07 14:10 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-07 14:41 ` luca abeni
2019-05-07 15:02 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-08 8:04 ` Juri Lelli
2019-05-08 8:17 ` luca abeni
2019-07-04 12:05 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-08 7:41 ` luca abeni
2019-07-08 10:41 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-05-06 4:48 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] sched/dl: Try better placement even for deadline tasks that do not block Luca Abeni
2019-05-07 14:13 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-07 16:00 ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2019-05-08 8:01 ` Juri Lelli
2019-05-08 8:14 ` luca abeni
2019-05-08 9:22 ` Juri Lelli
2019-07-08 13:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-09 13:24 ` luca abeni
2019-07-09 13:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-11 11:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-11 12:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-11 15:33 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-07-09 14:44 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2019-05-06 4:48 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] sched/dl: Improve capacity-aware wakeup Luca Abeni
2019-05-08 9:08 ` Juri Lelli
2019-05-08 9:24 ` luca abeni
2019-05-08 12:05 ` Juri Lelli
2019-05-08 12:47 ` luca abeni
2019-05-08 13:10 ` Juri Lelli
2019-05-08 14:12 ` luca abeni
2019-05-06 4:48 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] sched/dl: If the task does not fit anywhere, select the fastest core Luca Abeni
2019-05-06 4:48 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] sched/dl: Try not to select a too fast core Luca Abeni
2019-05-07 15:57 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-08 6:26 ` luca abeni
2019-05-09 13:46 ` Quentin Perret
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=20190507160038.GF19434@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).