Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1372332 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-06 11:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-06 15:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: No need to check NULL later_mask Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-04-06 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: No need to check NULL later_mask Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> - 2016-04-06 15:10 +0200
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 11:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: No need to check NULL later_mask |
| Message-ID | <rkS6m-1Kx-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 06:14:28PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: > Your proposal is very nice! > > At the sched_init() stage we only have one (to be "idle") task and with irq disabled, > no scheduling will happen, and the cpu_possible_mask was already initiated, so it's > safe to simply move them there. > > Also, how about rt&deadline sharing a percpu mask? Because only one of them can > use the mask at a moment, operations are always under some spin_lock_irqsave(). > > I made a new patch below, slightly tested by running tens of rt&dl tasks for a while, > are you fine with it? Yep, looks fine. Please submit as a proper patch. Thanks!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 15:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rkVnA-4fv-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1372332 |
On 2016/04/06 at 17:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 06:14:28PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: >> Your proposal is very nice! >> >> At the sched_init() stage we only have one (to be "idle") task and with irq disabled, >> no scheduling will happen, and the cpu_possible_mask was already initiated, so it's >> safe to simply move them there. >> >> Also, how about rt&deadline sharing a percpu mask? Because only one of them can >> use the mask at a moment, operations are always under some spin_lock_irqsave(). >> >> I made a new patch below, slightly tested by running tens of rt&dl tasks for a while, >> are you fine with it? > Yep, looks fine. Please submit as a proper patch. Will do, thanks! Regards, Xunlei > > Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web