On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 21:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 14:43 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > plain text document attachment (rt-balance-pull-tasks.patch)
> 
> > +static int pull_rt_task(struct rq *this_rq)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_struct *next;
> > +	struct task_struct *p;
> > +	struct rq *src_rq;
> > +	int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
> > +	int cpu;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	assert_spin_locked(&this_rq->lock);
> > +
> > +	if (likely(!atomic_read(&rt_overload)))
> > +		return 0;
> 
> This seems to be the only usage of rt_overload. I'm not sure its worth
> keeping it around for this.

Ingo just brought up a good point. With large smp (where large is >64)
this will all suck chunks.

rt_overload will bounce around the system, and the rto_cpumask updates
might already hurt.

The idea would be to do this per cpuset, these naturally limit the
migraiton posibilities of tasks and would thus be the natural locality
to break this data structure.

quoted text
> > +	next = pick_next_task_rt(this_rq);
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, rto_cpumask) {
> > +		if (this_cpu == cpu)
> > +			continue;
> 
> ...
> 
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> 

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/