On 01/24/2011 01:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 16:34 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
From: Mike Galbraith<efa...@gmx.de>
Currently only implemented for fair class tasks.
Add a yield_to_task method() to the fair scheduling class. allowing the
caller of yield_to() to accelerate another thread in it's thread group,
task group.
Implemented via a scheduler hint, using cfs_rq->next to encourage the
target being selected. We can rely on pick_next_entity to keep things
fair, so noone can accelerate a thread that has already used its fair
share of CPU time.
This also means callers should only call yield_to when they really
mean it. Calling it too often can result in the scheduler just
ignoring the hint.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel<r...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti<mtosa...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith<efa...@gmx.de>
Patch 5 wants to be merged back in here I think..
Agreed, but I wanted Mike's comments first :)
+/**
+ * yield_to - yield the current processor to another thread in
+ * your thread group, or accelerate that thread toward the
+ * processor it's on.
+ *
+ * It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
+ * can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
+ *
+ * Returns true if we indeed boosted the target task.
+ */
+bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
+{
+ struct task_struct *curr = current;
+ struct rq *rq, *p_rq;
+ unsigned long flags;
+ bool yielded = 0;
+
+ local_irq_save(flags);
+ rq = this_rq();
+
+again:
+ p_rq = task_rq(p);
+ double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
+ while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
+ double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
+ goto again;
+ }
+
+ if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
+ goto out;
+
+ if (!same_thread_group(p, curr))
+ goto out;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
+ if (task_group(p) != task_group(curr))
+ goto out;
+#endif
+
+ yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
+
+out:
+ double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
+
+ if (yielded)
+ yield();
Calling yield() here is funny, you just had all the locks to actually do
it..
This is us giving up the CPU, which requires not holding locks.
A different thing than us giving the CPU away to someone else.
+static bool yield_to_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool
preempt)
+{
+ struct sched_entity *se =&p->se;
+
+ if (!se->on_rq)
+ return false;
+
+ /* Tell the scheduler that we'd really like pse to run next. */
+ set_next_buddy(se);
+
+ /* Make p's CPU reschedule; pick_next_entity takes care of fairness. */
+ if (preempt)
+ resched_task(rq->curr);
+
+ return true;
+}
So here we set ->next, we could be ->last, and after this we'll set
->yield to curr by calling yield().
So if you do this cyclically I can see ->yield == {->next,->last}
happening.
That would only happen if we called yield_to with ourselves
as the argument!
There is no caller in the tree that does that - task p is
another task, not ourselves.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
