On 02/07/2014 07:10 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> The scheduler main function 'schedule()' checks if there are no more tasks
> on the runqueue. Then it checks if a task should be pulled in the current
> runqueue in idle_balance() assuming it will go to idle otherwise.
>
> But the idle_balance() releases the rq->lock in order to lookup in the sched
> domains and takes the lock again right after. That opens a window where
> another cpu may put a task in our runqueue, so we won't go to idle but
> we have filled the idle_stamp, thinking we will.
>
> This patch closes the window by checking if the runqueue has been modified
> but without pulling a task after taking the lock again, so we won't go to idle
> right after in the __schedule() function.
>
> Cc: alex....@linaro.org
> Cc: pet...@infradead.org
> Cc: mi...@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 428bc9d..5ebc681 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6589,6 +6589,13 @@ void idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
>
> raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
>
> + /*
> + * While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock.
> + * A task could have be enqueued in the meantime
> + */
Mind to move the following line up to here?
if (curr_cost > this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost)
this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost = curr_cost;
> + if (this_rq->nr_running && !pulled_task)
> + return;
> +
> if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
> /*
> * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
>
--
Thanks
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
