Re: [RFC][PATCH tip/sched/core] sched/rt: Simplify the IPI rt balancing logic

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 08:43:18 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:51:54 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 10:49:29PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:  
> > > When a CPU schedules in a lower priority task and wants to make sure
> > > overloaded CPUs know about it. It increments the rto_loop_next. Then it does
> > > an atomic_inc_return() on rto_loop_start. If the returned value is not "1",
> > > then it does atomic_dec() on rt_loop_start and returns. If the value is "1",
> > > then it will take the rto_lock to synchronize with a possible IPI being sent
> > > around to the overloaded CPUs.    
> >   
> > > +	start = atomic_inc_return(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);
> > > +	if (start != 1)
> > > +		goto out;    
> >   
> > > +out:
> > > +	atomic_dec(&rq->rd->rto_loop_start);    
> > 
> > 
> > Did you just write a very expensive test-and-set trylock?  
> 
> Probably. I didn't know we had a generic one. Where is it?
> 
> $ git grep test_and_set |grep trylock
> fs/jfs/jfs_metapage.c:#define trylock_metapage(mp) test_and_set_bit_lock(META_locked, &(mp)->flag)
> 
> I don't think the above is what you mean.

Or do you mean to just use test_and_set instead?

-- Steve