On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:42:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So I think that is indeed the right thing here. But looking at this
> function I think there's more problems with it.
>
> It seems to assume that if there's FIFO tasks, those will run. This is
> incorrect. The FIFO task can have a lower prio than an RR task, in which
> case the RR task will run.
>
> So the whole fifo_nr_running test seems misplaced, it should go after
> the rr_nr_running tests. That is, only if !rr_nr_running, can we use
> fifo_nr_running like this.
A little something like so perhaps; can anybody test?
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index ffec7d9e7763..4240686f6857 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -596,17 +596,8 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
return false;
/*
- * FIFO realtime policy runs the highest priority task (after DEADLINE).
- * Other runnable tasks are of a lower priority. The scheduler tick
- * isn't needed.
- */
- fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
- if (fifo_nr_running)
- return true;
-
- /*
- * Round-robin realtime tasks time slice with other tasks at the same
- * realtime priority.
+ * If there are more than one RR tasks, we need the tick to effect the
+ * actual RR behaviour.
*/
if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running) {
if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running == 1)
@@ -615,8 +606,20 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
return false;
}
- /* Normal multitasking need periodic preemption checks */
- if (rq->cfs.nr_running > 1)
+ /*
+ * If there's no RR tasks, but FIFO tasks, we can skip the tick, no
+ * forced preemption between FIFO tasks.
+ */
+ fifo_nr_running = rq->rt.rt_nr_running - rq->rt.rr_nr_running;
+ if (fifo_nr_running)
+ return true;
+
+ /*
+ * If there are no DL,RR/FIFO tasks, there must only be CFS tasks left;
+ * if there's more than one we need the tick for involuntary
+ * preemption.
+ */
+ if (rq->nr_running > 1)
return false;
return true;
