Re: [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for PLEhandler

[Andrew Theurer]

On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 14:13 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > 
> > signed-off-by: Andrew Theurer <habanero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index fbf1fd0..c767915 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -4844,6 +4844,9 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool
> > preempt)
> > 
> >  again:
> >  	p_rq = task_rq(p);
> > +	if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state || !(p_rq->curr->flags &
> > PF_VCPU)) {
> > +		goto out_no_unlock;
> > +	}
> >  	double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
> >  	while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
> >  		double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
> > @@ -4856,8 +4859,6 @@ again:
> >  	if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
> >  		goto out;
> > 
> > -	if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
> > -		goto out;
> 
> Is it possible that by this time the current thread takes double rq
> lock, thread p could actually be running?  i.e is there merit to keep
> this check around even with your similar check above?

I think that's a good idea.  I'll add that back in.
> 
> > 
> >  	yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
> >  	if (yielded) {
> > @@ -4879,6 +4880,7 @@ again:
> > 
> >  out:
> >  	double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
> > +out_no_unlock:
> >  	local_irq_restore(flags);
> > 
> >  	if (yielded)
> > 
> > 
> 

-Andrew Theurer


--
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/