Re: [Question] Some question about Ingo scheduler.

From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 09:17:36 EST

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, liyu wrote:

> Hi, Everyone on lkml

Hi Liyu,

> I am read linux scheduler at home in last vacation.
> After read , I have some question that want to consult:
> 1.
> In schedule() function, we can find some code like this:
> if (prev->state && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)) {
> switch_count = &prev->nvcsw;
> if (unlikely((prev->state & TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) &&
> unlikely(signal_pending(prev))))
> prev->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> else {
> if (prev->state == TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
> rq->nr_uninterruptible++;
> deactivate_task(prev, rq);
> }
> }
> I think I can understand code in two braces: they want to change
> status of task which have signal pending when sleep, or remove task
> that is 'deep sleeping' from ready queue.
> but my question is why we do not need such code (in both braces)
> when preempt is enable?

I'm sorry I don't quite understand your question, but I can at least
explain the logic of what is happening.

The first "if" is entered if the prev task is in something other than the
TASK_RUNNING state (which is zero). It also has to not have the
PREEMPT_ACTIVE set. The next "if" checks to see if the prev task is in
the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state and has a signal pending. Which the
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state allows to be woken up on signals.

If there is no signal or the task is sleeping other than
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE then the task is taken off the run queue.

Now the reason for the check against PREEMPT_ACTIVE is very important
here. If PREEMPT_ACTIVE is set, then that means that the task was
preempted by something else and did _not_ call schedule directly. Code
that usually sets current to something other than TASK_RUNNING usually has
logic around it to test if it should call schedule and be taken off the
run queue. If PREEMPT_ACTIVE is set, then that means you don't know where
in this logic the task was preempted. If you take it off the run queue
now, it may not have been in a position to ever wake up. So you don't
ever want a preemption to take a task off the run queue. Only when the
task implicitly calls schedule.

> 2. in scheduler_tick()
> Before split time slice, we should be check some conditions first, these
> check code is copied here:
> /*
> * Prevent a too long timeslice allowing a task to
> monopolize
> * the CPU. We do this by splitting up the timeslice into
> * smaller pieces.
> *
> * Note: this does not mean the task's timeslices expire or
> * get lost in any way, they just might be preempted by
> * another task of equal priority. (one with higher
> * priority would have preempted this task already.) We
> * requeue this task to the end of the list on this priority
> * level, which is in essence a round-robin of tasks with
> * equal priority.
> *
> * This only applies to tasks in the interactive
> * delta range with at least TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY to
> requeue.
> */
> if (TASK_INTERACTIVE(p) && !((task_timeslice(p) -
> p->time_slice) % TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY(p)) &&
> (p->time_slice >= TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY(p)) &&
> (p->array == rq->active)) {
> requeue_task(p, rq->active);
> set_tsk_need_resched(p);
> }
> My second question is , what's mean of
> (task_timeslice(p) - p->time_slice) % TIMESLICE_GRANULARITY(p)

Sorry, I'm not about to even think about what Ingo's doing here ;-) I just
trust Ingo knows what he's doing.

You need to ask Ingo himself.

-- Steve

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at