/*===== ISSUE ====*/
My second version of patch has a defect.
+ if (unlikely(old_prio != next->prio)) {
+ dequeue_task(next, array); --> ### dequeue should against
old_prio, NOT next->prio ###
+ enqueue_task(next, array);
+ }
unforunately, dequeue_task does not accept the third parameter to make
adjustment. Personally, I feel it's good to add extra function as my
first version of patch to combine dequeue and enqueue together.
Reasons as following:
1) adding the third parameter to dequeue_task() would cause other
places' code change;
2) for schedule functions, performance is the first consideration.
Notice both dequeue_task() and enqueue_task() are NOT inline.
Combining those two in one saves one function call overhead;
/* ===== NEW PATCH ===== */
The new patch, see below, adds new function change_queue_task() to
dequeue from "old_prio queue" and enqueue the "next task" to
"next->prio queue".
The patch also inlines requeue_task().
The patch has been tested with 2.6.11.10, looks good. -For somehow,
2.6.12-rc4 is still not stable on my machine (Fedora 3).
/* ===== [PATCH 2.6.11.?] kernel/sched.c =====*/
--- linux-2.6.12-rc4.orig/kernel/sched.c 2005-05-06 22:20:31.000000000 -0700
+++ linux12/kernel/sched.c 2005-05-21 16:19:11.000000000 -0700
@@ -556,11 +556,23 @@
p->array = array;
}
+static void change_queue_task(struct task_struct *p, prio_array_t
*array, int old_prio)
+{
+ list_del(&p->run_list);
+ if (list_empty(array->queue + old_prio))
+ __clear_bit(old_prio, array->bitmap);
+
+ sched_info_queued(p);
+ list_add_tail(&p->run_list, array->queue + p->prio);
+ __set_bit(p->prio, array->bitmap);
+ p->array = array;
+}
+
/*
* Put task to the end of the run list without the overhead of dequeue
* followed by enqueue.
*/
-static void requeue_task(struct task_struct *p, prio_array_t *array)
+static inline void requeue_task(struct task_struct *p, prio_array_t *array)
{
list_move_tail(&p->run_list, array->queue + p->prio);
}
@@ -2613,7 +2625,7 @@
struct list_head *queue;
unsigned long long now;
unsigned long run_time;
- int cpu, idx;
+ int cpu, idx, old_prio;
/*
* Test if we are atomic. Since do_exit() needs to call into
@@ -2735,9 +2747,14 @@
delta = delta * (ON_RUNQUEUE_WEIGHT * 128 / 100) / 128;
array = next->array;
- dequeue_task(next, array);
+ old_prio = next->prio;
+
recalc_task_prio(next, next->timestamp + delta);
- enqueue_task(next, array);
+
+ if (unlikely(old_prio != next->prio))
+ change_queue_task(next, array, old_prio);
+ else
+ requeue_task(next, array);
}
next->activated = 0;
switch_tasks:
/* ===== PATCH END ===== */
Thanks,
-chen
On 5/20/05, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Con Kolivas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * chen Shang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I minimized my patch and against to 2.6.12-rc4 this time, see below.
> > >
> > > looks good - i've done some small style/whitespace cleanups and renamed
> > > prio to old_prio, patch against -rc4 below.
> >
> > We should inline requeue_task as well.
>
> yeah.
>
> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
>
> 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]
