lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] sched/rt: fix pushing unfit tasks to a better CPU
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 05:47:19PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 02/18/20 09:46, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > The original RT task placement i.e without capacity awareness, places the task
> > on the previous CPU if the task can preempt the running task. I interpreted it
> > as that "higher prio RT" task should get better treatment even if it results
> > in stopping the lower prio RT execution and migrating it to another CPU.
> >
> > Now coming to your patch (merged), we force find_lowest_rq() if the previous
> > CPU can't fit the task though this task can right away run there. When the
> > lowest mask returns an unfit CPU (with your new patch), We have two choices,
> > either to place it on this unfit CPU (may involve migration) or place it on
> > the previous CPU to avoid the migration. We are selecting the first approach.
> >
> > The task_cpu(p) check in find_lowest_rq() only works when the previous CPU
> > does not have a RT task. If it is running a lower prio RT task than the
> > waking task, the lowest_mask may not contain the previous CPU.
> >
> > I don't if any workload hurts due to this change in behavior. So not sure
> > if we have to restore the original behavior. Something like below will do.
>
> Is this patch equivalent to yours? If yes, then I got you. If not, then I need
> to re-read this again..
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index ace9acf9d63c..854a0c9a7be6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1476,6 +1476,13 @@ select_task_rq_rt(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
> if (test || !rt_task_fits_capacity(p, cpu)) {
> int target = find_lowest_rq(p);
>
> + /*
> + * Bail out if we were forcing a migration to find a better
> + * fitting CPU but our search failed.
> + */
> + if (!test && !rt_task_fits_capacity(p, target))
> + goto out_unlock;
> +

Yes. This is what I was referring to.

Thanks,
Pavan

--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-19 03:46    [W:0.078 / U:0.852 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site