On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 03:21:54PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 14:05, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 03:12:30PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > @@ -6155,6 +6159,35 @@ static int sched_idle_cpu(int cpu)
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > +static void set_next_buddy(struct sched_entity *se);
> > > +
> > > +static void check_preempt_from_others(struct cfs_rq *cfs, struct sched_entity *se)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sched_entity *next;
> > > +
> > > + if (se->latency_offset >= 0)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + if (cfs->nr_running <= 1)
> > > + return;
> > > + /*
> > > + * When waking from another class, we don't need to check to preempt at
> > > + * wakeup and don't set next buddy as a candidate for being picked in
> > > + * priority.
> > > + * In case of simultaneous wakeup when current is another class, the
> > > + * latency sensitive tasks lost opportunity to preempt non sensitive
> > > + * tasks which woke up simultaneously.
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + if (cfs->next)
> > > + next = cfs->next;
> > > + else
> > > + next = __pick_first_entity(cfs);
> > > +
> > > + if (next && wakeup_preempt_entity(next, se) == 1)
> > > + set_next_buddy(se);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * The enqueue_task method is called before nr_running is
> > > * increased. Here we update the fair scheduling stats and
> > > @@ -6241,14 +6274,15 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > > if (!task_new)
> > > update_overutilized_status(rq);
> > >
> > > + if (rq->curr->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
> > > + check_preempt_from_others(cfs_rq_of(&p->se), &p->se);
> > > +
> > > enqueue_throttle:
> > > assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> > >
> > > hrtick_update(rq);
> > > }
> >
> > Hmm.. This sets a next selection when the task gets enqueued while not
> > running a fair task -- and looses a wakeup preemption opportunity.
> >
> > Should we perhaps also do this for latency_nice == 0?, in any case I
> > think this can be moved to its own patch to avoid doing too much in the
> > one patch. It seems fairly self contained.
>
> This function is then removed by patch 9 as the additional rb tree
> fixes all cases
Ah, I'm currently 'stuck' at 8.. I'll get there :-)
