On Sat, 30 May 2015 12:54:23 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 10:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Makes me like the thing even less though..
>
> Steven, why do we normally push on schedule()? Would not the natural
> location be where we add to pushable_tasks?
>
> Which wou
On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 10:20 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Makes me like the thing even less though..
Steven, why do we normally push on schedule()? Would not the natural
location be where we add to pushable_tasks?
Which would be here in set_cpus_allowed() and wakeups. schedule() seems
like a sec
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:04:36PM +0800, pang.xun...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Peter Zijlstra wrote 2015-05-29 PM 09:16:26:
> >
> > Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] sched/rt: Check to push the task away after its
> > affinity was changed
> >
> > On Tue, M
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:46:41PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> @@ -2278,6 +2279,20 @@ static void set_cpus_allowed_rt(struct task_struct *p,
> }
>
> update_rt_migration(&rq->rt);
> +
> +check_push:
> + if (weight > 1 &&
> + !task_running(rq, p) &&
> + !test_tsk_nee
From: Xunlei Pang
We may suffer from extra rt overload rq due to the affinity,
so when the affinity of any runnable rt task is changed, we
should check to trigger balancing, otherwise it will cause
some unnecessary delayed real-time response. Unfortunately,
current RT global scheduler does nothin
5 matches
Mail list logo
