Hi Steve,
On 06/12/2018 21:28, Steve Sistare wrote:
[...]
> @@ -3724,6 +3725,28 @@ static inline void update_misfit_status(struct
> task_struct *p, struct rq *rq)
> rq->misfit_task_load = task_h_load(p);
> }
>
> +static void overload_clear(struct rq *rq)
Nitpicky nit: cfs_overload_{clear, set} might be a bit better, just to
explicitly differentiate this from rq->rd->overload. Although I suppose
the naming problem will show up again if/when you try to expand this to
other classes...
> +{
> + struct sparsemask *overload_cpus;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + overload_cpus = rcu_dereference(rq->cfs_overload_cpus);
> + if (overload_cpus)
> + sparsemask_clear_elem(overload_cpus, rq->cpu);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +
> +static void overload_set(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + struct sparsemask *overload_cpus;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + overload_cpus = rcu_dereference(rq->cfs_overload_cpus);
> + if (overload_cpus)
> + sparsemask_set_elem(overload_cpus, rq->cpu);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +}
> +
> #else /* CONFIG_SMP */
>
> #define UPDATE_TG 0x0
[...]
> @@ -4468,8 +4495,12 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
> dequeue = 0;
> }
>
> - if (!se)
> + if (!se) {
> sub_nr_running(rq, task_delta);
> + if (prev_nr >= 2 && prev_nr - task_delta < 2)
> + overload_clear(rq);
> +
> + }
Eventually it'd be nice to squash those into {add, sub}_nr_running(), but
you already mentioned wanting to stick to CFS for now, so I don't think
it's *too* much of a big deal.
>
> cfs_rq->throttled = 1;
> cfs_rq->throttled_clock = rq_clock(rq);
> @@ -4499,6 +4530,7 @@ static void throttle_cfs_rq(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
[...]
