On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:49:35AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 3e75c62..b7f7a96 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1869,7 +1869,8 @@ out_activate:
> * extra locking in this particular case, because
> * we are on the current CPU.)
> */
> - if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq))
> + if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq)
> + && cpu_isset(this_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
> set_tsk_need_resched(this_rq->curr);
> else
> /*
I wonder if it might better to explicitly take the rq lock and try to
put the task on this_rq in this situation? Rather than waiting for
schedule to pull it from a remote rq as part of balance_rt_tasks.
A question that has passed through my head a few times is: When waking
a RT task is it better to:
1) run on current CPU if possible
2) run on CPU task previously ran on
I think #1 may result in lower latency. But, if the task has lots of
cache warmth the lower wakeup latency may be negated by running on a
'remote' cpu.
--
Mike
-
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]
