Re: [PATCH v15 04/13] task_isolation: add initial support
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2016-08-29 16:34:07
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 05:19:27PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ /* + * Request rescheduling unless we are in full dynticks mode. + * We would eventually get pre-empted without this, and if + * there's another task waiting, it would run; but by + * explicitly requesting the reschedule, we may reduce the + * latency. We could directly call schedule() here as well, + * but since our caller is the standard place where schedule() + * is called, we defer to the caller. + * + * A more substantive approach here would be to use a struct + * completion here explicitly, and complete it when we shut + * down dynticks, but since we presumably have nothing better + * to do on this core anyway, just spinning seems plausible. + */ + if (!tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) + set_tsk_need_resched(current);
This is broken.. and it would be really good if you don't actually need to do this. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>