* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> As the comment says, do nothing since all the work is automatically
> done at the return from interrupt. But is it? Doesn't the
> need_resched need to be set? Here's what I'm seeing with Ingo's
> kernel. I capture the time in sched.c when the
> smp_send_reschedule_allbutself is called, and also a capture of the
> time when the schedule actually takes place. I'm finding differences
> up to 2 tenths of a second. That's TENTHS! I added the following
> patch:
it's all a bit tricky. The short story is that i think both vanilla and
-RT kernels are fine.
Here is how smp_send_reschedule() is used:
CPU#0 CPU#1
set_tsk_need_resched(rq->curr);
...
smp_send_reschedule()
--- IPI --->
smp_reschedule_interrupt();
...
entry.S's need_resched check
_but_, this is intentionally racy: if CPU#1 happens to reschedule before
the IPI reaches CPU#1 (an IPI can take 10 usecs easily so the window is
not small), then need_resched might be cleared before the IPI hits. In
that case you wont get a reschedule after the IPI hits, because it was
done before!
so the correct thing to measure is what the -RT kernel's wakeup-latency
timing feature does: the time from setting need_resched, to the point
the task starts to run. The feature works on SMP too - and it doesnt
show any large latencies.
are you seeing actual process delays? If not then i think those large
latencies are just the result of the wrong assumptions in your
measurement code.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
