On 12/10/2020 13:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:56:09AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 05/10/2020 16:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
>>> @@ -1859,7 +1859,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_pus
>>>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:56:09AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 05/10/2020 16:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > @@ -1859,7 +1859,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_pus
> > * running task can migrate over to a CPU
On 05/10/2020 16:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1859,7 +1859,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_pus
> * running task can migrate over to a CPU that is running a task
> * of lesser priority.
> */
> -static int
On 2020-10-05 16:57:32 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In order to minimize the interference of migrate_disable() on lower
> priority tasks, which can be deprived of runtime due to being stuck
> below a higher priority task. Teach the RT/DL balancers to push away
> these higher priority tasks
On 07/10/20 22:08, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 08:22:44PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> +struct task_struct *curr = class->peek_next_task(rq);
>
> If you look at the core-sched patches they have something very similar
> :-)
Shiny, there's the fair thing I
On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 08:22:44PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> + struct task_struct *curr = class->peek_next_task(rq);
If you look at the core-sched patches they have something very similar
:-)
On 05/10/20 15:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In order to minimize the interference of migrate_disable() on lower
> priority tasks, which can be deprived of runtime due to being stuck
> below a higher priority task. Teach the RT/DL balancers to push away
> these higher priority tasks when a lower
On 06/10/20 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:37:04PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 06/10/20 15:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 05/10/20 15:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > In order
On 06/10/20 14:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>
>> An alternative I could see would be to prevent those piles from forming
>> altogether, say by issuing a similar push_cpu_stop() on migrate_disable()
>> if the next pushable task
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 04:37:04PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 06/10/20 15:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > >
> > > On 05/10/20 15:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > In order to minimize the interference of migrate_disable() on
On 06/10/20 15:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >
> > On 05/10/20 15:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > In order to minimize the interference of migrate_disable() on lower
> > > priority tasks, which can be deprived of runtime due to
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:44:45AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> As I've always said. When dealing with real-time systems, you need to be
> careful about how you organize your tasks. Ideally, any RT task that is
> pinned to a CPU shouldn't be sharing that CPU with anything else that may
> be
On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 12:20:43PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>
> On 05/10/20 15:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > In order to minimize the interference of migrate_disable() on lower
> > priority tasks, which can be deprived of runtime due to being stuck
> > below a higher priority task. Teach
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 09:59:39 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:57:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +static inline struct task_struct *get_push_task(struct rq *rq)
> > +{
> > + struct task_struct *p = rq->curr;
> > +
> > + lockdep_assert_held(>lock);
> > +
> > +
On 05/10/20 15:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In order to minimize the interference of migrate_disable() on lower
> priority tasks, which can be deprived of runtime due to being stuck
> below a higher priority task. Teach the RT/DL balancers to push away
> these higher priority tasks when a lower
On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 04:57:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +static inline struct task_struct *get_push_task(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *p = rq->curr;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(>lock);
> +
> + if (rq->push_busy)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + if
In order to minimize the interference of migrate_disable() on lower
priority tasks, which can be deprived of runtime due to being stuck
below a higher priority task. Teach the RT/DL balancers to push away
these higher priority tasks when a lower priority task gets selected
to run on a freshly
17 matches
Mail list logo
