Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 05:33:49PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
Lastly, I'd like to be a bit less intrusive with pinned task
handling improvements. I think we can do this while still being
effective in preventing livelocks.
We want to see this fixed. Please post your patch and I can let you know
the test results.
Using the attached patch, a puny dual PIII-650 with ~400MB RAM swapped
itself to death after 20000 infinite loop tasks had been pinned to one
of the CPUs. See how you go.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c 2005-04-07 02:39:22.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c 2005-04-07 02:45:26.000000000 +1000
@@ -2041,6 +2041,12 @@ static runqueue_t *find_busiest_queue(st
}
/*
+ * Max backoff if we encounter pinned tasks. Pretty arbitrary value, but
+ * so long as it is large enough.
+ */
+#define MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL 1024
+
+/*
* Check this_cpu to ensure it is balanced within domain. Attempt to move
* tasks if there is an imbalance.
*
@@ -2052,7 +2058,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, ru
struct sched_group *group;
runqueue_t *busiest;
unsigned long imbalance;
- int nr_moved, all_pinned;
+ int nr_moved, all_pinned = 0;
int active_balance = 0;
spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
@@ -2143,7 +2149,8 @@ out_balanced:
sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
/* tune up the balancing interval */
- if (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval)
+ if ((all_pinned && sd->balance_interval < MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL) ||
+ (sd->balance_interval < sd->max_interval))
sd->balance_interval *= 2;
return 0;
