On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:19:22AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:03:52 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:53:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Peter, do we have a solution for this yet? Are you going to add the one
>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:19:22AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:03:52 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:53:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Peter, do we have a solution for this yet? Are you going to add the one
> > > with the linker
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:53:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Peter, do we have a solution for this yet? Are you going to add the one
> with the linker magic?
I queued the below earlier today.
---
Subject: sched: Fix pick_next_task() for RT,DL
From: Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:53:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Peter, do we have a solution for this yet? Are you going to add the one
> with the linker magic?
I queued the below earlier today.
---
Subject: sched: Fix pick_next_task() for RT,DL
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Mar 1 10:51:47
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:03:52 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:53:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Peter, do we have a solution for this yet? Are you going to add the one
> > with the linker magic?
>
> I queued the below earlier today.
Isn't
On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:03:52 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:53:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Peter, do we have a solution for this yet? Are you going to add the one
> > with the linker magic?
>
> I queued the below earlier today.
Isn't this pretty much
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:45:06 +0530
Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> > diff --git
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:45:06 +0530
Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> > index
Sorry, for the late reply. Just got back from traveling.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:54:38 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hurm.. maybe we should do what Steve initially suggested. The
> > alternative is link
Sorry, for the late reply. Just got back from traveling.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:54:38 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hurm.. maybe we should do what Steve initially suggested. The
> > alternative is link order trickery, and I'm
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hurm.. maybe we should do what Steve initially suggested. The
> alternative is link order trickery, and I'm not sure we want to do that.
That is, given:
kernel/sched/Makefile: obj-y += idle_task.o fair.o rt.o deadline.o
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hurm.. maybe we should do what Steve initially suggested. The
> alternative is link order trickery, and I'm not sure we want to do that.
That is, given:
kernel/sched/Makefile: obj-y += idle_task.o fair.o rt.o deadline.o
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:59:15PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:25:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah, I read your question wrong. Yes I think you're right, we now loose
> >>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:59:15PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:25:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah, I read your question wrong. Yes I think you're right, we now loose
> >> the pull when the last
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:25:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I read your question wrong. Yes I think you're right, we now loose
>> the pull when the last RT task goes away.
>>
>> Hmm.. how to fix that
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:25:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> Ah, I read your question wrong. Yes I think you're right, we now loose
>> the pull when the last RT task goes away.
>>
>> Hmm.. how to fix that nicely..
>
> Something
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:25:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Ah, I read your question wrong. Yes I think you're right, we now loose
> the pull when the last RT task goes away.
>
> Hmm.. how to fix that nicely..
Something like so perhaps? This would make a pull happen when the last
RT
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:25:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Ah, I read your question wrong. Yes I think you're right, we now loose
> the pull when the last RT task goes away.
>
> Hmm.. how to fix that nicely..
Something like so perhaps? This would make a pull happen when the last
RT
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 08:45:06PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 08:45:06PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> >> > index
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > index 49ce1cb..51ca21e 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>
Hi Peter,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > index 49ce1cb..51ca21e 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> > +++
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 49ce1cb..51ca21e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -3321,15 +3321,14 @@ static inline void
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:04:22PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 49ce1cb..51ca21e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -3321,15 +3321,14 @@ static inline void
Hi Peter,
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 49ce1cb..51ca21e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3321,15 +3321,14 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct
> *prev)
> static inline struct task_struct *
>
Hi Peter,
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 49ce1cb..51ca21e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3321,15 +3321,14 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct
> *prev)
> static inline struct task_struct *
>
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:14:25AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > OK, so I hate this patch because it makes the condition more complex,
> > and while staring at what it does for code generation I couldn't for the
> > life of me figure out why we care about prev->sched_class to begin with.
>
> I
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:14:25AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > OK, so I hate this patch because it makes the condition more complex,
> > and while staring at what it does for code generation I couldn't for the
> > life of me figure out why we care about prev->sched_class to begin with.
>
> I
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:14:25 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> >
> > Could you give it a spin to see if anything comes apart?
>
> Yeah this works. You can add:
>
> Reported-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
> Tested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:14:25 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> >
> > Could you give it a spin to see if anything comes apart?
>
> Yeah this works. You can add:
>
> Reported-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
> Tested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
>
You can also add that my likely profiler on a
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:44:08 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
- if (likely(prev->sched_class == class &&
> > + if (likely((prev->sched_class == class ||
> > + prev->sched_class == idle_class) &&
> >rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.h_nr_running)) {
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 18:44:08 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
- if (likely(prev->sched_class == class &&
> > + if (likely((prev->sched_class == class ||
> > + prev->sched_class == idle_class) &&
> >rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.h_nr_running)) {
>
> OK, so I hate
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:17:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 154fd68..e2c6d3b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3259,13 +3259,15 @@ static inline struct task_struct *
> pick_next_task(struct rq
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 10:17:03AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 154fd68..e2c6d3b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3259,13 +3259,15 @@ static inline struct task_struct *
> pick_next_task(struct rq
When running my likely/unlikely profiler, I noticed that the
SCHED_DEADLINE's pick_next_task_dl() unlikely case of
(!dl_rq->dl_nr_running) was always being hit. There's two cases where
this can happen.
First, there's an optimization in pick_next_task() for the likely case
that the only tasks
When running my likely/unlikely profiler, I noticed that the
SCHED_DEADLINE's pick_next_task_dl() unlikely case of
(!dl_rq->dl_nr_running) was always being hit. There's two cases where
this can happen.
First, there's an optimization in pick_next_task() for the likely case
that the only tasks
36 matches
Mail list logo