Re: runqueue locks in schedule()

[Nick Piggin]

On Friday 18 January 2008 17:33, stephane eranian wrote:
> Nick,

> > It is arch specific. If an architecture wants interrupts on during
> > context switch, or runqueue unlocked, then they set it (btw
> > INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW also implies UNLOCKED_CTXSW).
>
> Yes , I noticed that. I am only interested in UNLOCKED_CTXSW.
> But it appears that the approach suggested my Peter does work. We are
> running some tests.

OK, that might be OK.


> > Although, eg on x86, you would hold off interrupts and runqueue lock for
> > slightly less time if you defined those, it results in _slightly_ more
> > complicated context switching... although I did once find a workload
> > where the reduced runqueue contention improved throughput a bit, it is
> > not much problem in general to hold the lock.
>
> By complicated you mean that now you'd have to make sure you don't
> need to access runqueue data?

Well, not speaking about the arch-specific code (which may involve
more complexities), but the core scheduler needs the
task_struct->oncpu variable wheras that isn't required if the
runqueue is locked while switching tasks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/