Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Enforce order of leaf CFS runqueues

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 16:24 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:

> Subject: [PATCH] sched: handle on_list ancestor in leaf_add_cfs_rq()
> From: Paul Turner <pjt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:08:10 -0700
> 
> Jan H. SchÃnherr found that in the case of an on_list ancestor we may
> incorrectly place the child to the right of a great-ancestor on the list.
> 
> Consider:
> 
>       A
>      / \     Here, t1A results in A->cfs_rq being on_list, however when
>     B  t1A   we start enqueuing from C this will not be visible.  This is
>    /         compounded by the fact that on_list expiration may also be out
>   C          of order, punching holes in the tree.
>  /
> t1C
> 
> Prevent this by making additions to the leaf_cfs_rq_list position independent.
> This is done by maintaining additions to this list within the
> enqueue_task_fair() path, which allows us to always enqueue against the
> current entity's first on_list ancestor.

The problem I have with this is that it makes the enqueue more
expensive. We're now optimizing a relatively slow path (load-balance) at
the cost of the hottest path in the kernel (enqueue/dequeue).


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/