Re: [PATCH] Prevent immediate process rescheduling

[Mike Galbraith]

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 22:03 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Really hate this change though,. doesn't seem right to not pick the same
> task again if its runnable. Bad for cache footprint.
> 
> The scenario is quite common for stuff like:
> 
> CPU0                                      CPU1
> 
> set_task_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
> 
> if (cond)
>   goto out;
>                                      <--- ttwu()
> schedule();

It also resists the scheduler's built in need to close spread, too much
of which can seriously damage latency for others later when the friendly
task later decides it wants to run hard.  OTOH, when it is a voluntary
schedule, not selecting another task is resisting the programmer.

Conundrum.

Another problem with that change is that it doesn't do diddly spit if
the top two are trying to yield, they'll just spin together.

Sounds like Mark's case really needs a gentle_yield() that moves the
task behind next, and slightly beyond if they are too close, but which
also ignores the request entirely if the gap is too large.

	-Mike

--
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/