Hello,
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:50:19PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 19:30:18 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > In the next version, I'll try some like..
> > ==
> > process_one_work(...) {
> > .....
> > spin_unlock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> > .....
> > if (cwq->wq->flags & WQ_IDLEPRI) {
> > set_scheduler(...SCHED_IDLE...)
> > cond_resched();
> > scheduler_switched = true;
> > }
> > f(work)
> > if (scheduler_switched)
> > set_scheduler(...SCHED_OTHER...)
> > spin_lock_irq(&gcwq->lock);
> > }
> > ==
> > Patch size will be much smaller. (Should I do this in memcg's code ??)
> >
>
> BTW, my concern is that if f(work) is enough short,effect of SCHED_IDLE will never
> be found because SCHED_OTHER -> SCHED_IDLE -> SCHED_OTHER switch is very fast.
> Changed "weight" of CFQ never affects the next calculation of vruntime..of the
> thread and the work will show the same behavior with SCHED_OTHER.
>
> I'm sorry if I misunderstand CFQ and setscheduler().
Hmm... I'm not too familiar there either but,
* If prio is lowered (you're gonna lower it too, right?),
prio_changed_fair() is called which in turn does resched_task() as
necessary.
* More importantly, for short work items, it's likely to not matter at
all. If you can determine beforehand that it's not gonna take very
long time, queueing on system_wq would be more efficient.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>