lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 06:22:11AM +0800, Peng Hao wrote:
> find_lock_lowest_rq may or not releease rq lock when return
> lowest_rq=NULL, but it is fuzzy.
> If not releasing rq lock, it is unnecessary to re-call
> pick_next_pushable_task.
> When CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, not releasing rq lock and return
> lowest_rq=null frequently happens in a simple test case:
> Four different rt priority tasks run on limited two cpus.
> Thanks for Steven Rostedt's advice.

Can we please write a more coherent Changelog, the above is very hard to
read.

Maybe something along the lines of:

Subject: sched/rt: Reduce push_rt_task() retries

Improve push_rt_task() by propagating the double_lock_balance() usage
from find_lock_lowest_rq(), thereby reducing the number of cases where
we have to assume rq->lock was dropped.


> Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
> ---
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 2e2955a..be0fc43 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1754,7 +1754,7 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
> !task_on_rq_queued(task))) {
>
> double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
> - lowest_rq = NULL;
> + lowest_rq = RETRY_TASK;
> break;
> }
> }

I'm confused.. should not:

/* try again */
double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
lowest_rq = NULL;

also return RETRY_TASK? That also is in the double_lock_balance() path
and will this have had rq->lock() released.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-15 11:20    [W:0.093 / U:2.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site