lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC] sched/core: Don't schedule threads on pre-empted vcpus
From
Date
Hi Steve,


On 05/04/2018 10:32 AM, Steven Sistare wrote:
> On 5/4/2018 1:22 PM, Rohit Jain wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 05/04/2018 02:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 01:52:10PM -0700, Rohit Jain wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>>> index 5e10aae..75d1ecf 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>>> @@ -4033,6 +4033,9 @@ int idle_cpu(int cpu)
>>>>           return 0;
>>>>   #endif
>>>>   +    if (vcpu_is_preempted(cpu))
>>>> +        return 0;
>>>> +
>>>>       return 1;
>>>>   }
>>> Basically OK with this, but did you consider idle_cpu() usage outside of
>>> select_idle_sibling()?
>>>
>>> For instance, I think got_nohz_idle_kick() isn't quite right with this
>>> on. Similarly for scheduler_tick(), that wants the actual idle state.
>> As far as intent is concerned, yes I agree you might be right. I left
>> the VM running for a couple of days, didn't see anything weird however.
>>
>> We could add a check at each of those places or something to that effect
>> if this is an issue. Please let me know how you want to proceed.
> The point is that some idle_cpu() call sites should consider preemption state
> and some should not, and they must be considered on a case by case basis. You
> could define a new accessor to abstract the difference, and call it from
> select_idle_sibling and anywhere else it makes sense.
>
> available_idle_cpu()
> {
> return idle_cpu() && !vcpu_is_preempted()
> }

Great! That's what I was thinking as "something to that effect" :)

Thanks,
Rohit

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-04 19:38    [W:0.036 / U:4.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site