On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 07:08:24AM -0700, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:36:51 +0900 > Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:44:45AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:12:49AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > > It would be better to avoid pushing tasks to other cpu within > > > > a SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain, instead, get more chances to check > > > > other siblings. > > > > > > Did you forget to post the rt equivalent to patch 1? > > > > No. Fortunately, rt currently works as patch 1 does. > > I'm thinking that the rt and deadline search for lowest rq functions > should be merged as one. > > What they are doing is looking for the rq with the lowest priority. > deadline currently doesn't care if it picks an rq with an rt task > running on it, even when there's an rq with no rt tasks that the dl task > can migrate to. The same goes with rt. It could place an RT task on an > rq running a deadline task without knowing the rt task wont be able to > run on that cpu immediately.
I also think so. And IMHO there are more things to care wrt rt/dl migration. As you said, the cases should be considered and fixed. I wonder if the rt and dl seartch should be merged as one though.. Thank you, Byungchul
