Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: fix RT task-wakeup logic

[Dmitry Adamushko]

2008/4/23 Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dmitry Adamushko pointed out a logic error in task_wake_up_rt() where we
>  will always evaluate to "true".  You can find the thread here:
>
>  http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/22/296
>
>  In reality, we only want to try to push tasks away when a wake up request is
>  not going to preempt the current task.  So lets fix it.
>
>  Note: We introduce test_tsk_need_resched() instead of open-coding the flag
>  check so that the merge-conflict with -rt should help remind us that we
>  may need to support NEEDS_RESCHED_DELAYED in the future, too.
>
>  Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@xxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@xxxxxxxxx>


I have to look at the second patch more thoroughly... but I guess,
we'd be better off opting for something more simple/less complex (it
looks a bit heavy at the first glance).

This patch already fixes an 'obvious' problem in task_wake_up_rt() and
narrows down the scope of the original problem.

For the original scenario (as well as for its variants with SCHED_FIFO
and != priorities) push_rt_tasks() is 'delayed' untill a reschedule
(which is already pending and should take place shortly... provided
'bounded/short' latencies :-)

For T0,T1 having equal prios + SCHED_RR, T1 (which can't be migrated
due to its affinity) will wait till T0's timeslice expires
and for SCHED_FIFO -- till T0 releases a CPU.

The 'optimal' way would be moving T0 immediatelly off this cpu.


-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
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/