On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:49:35AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c > index 3e75c62..b7f7a96 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched.c > +++ b/kernel/sched.c > @@ -1869,7 +1869,8 @@ out_activate: > * extra locking in this particular case, because > * we are on the current CPU.) > */ > - if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq)) > + if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, this_rq) > + && cpu_isset(this_cpu, p->cpus_allowed)) > set_tsk_need_resched(this_rq->curr); > else > /* I wonder if it might better to explicitly take the rq lock and try to put the task on this_rq in this situation? Rather than waiting for schedule to pull it from a remote rq as part of balance_rt_tasks. A question that has passed through my head a few times is: When waking a RT task is it better to: 1) run on current CPU if possible 2) run on CPU task previously ran on I think #1 may result in lower latency. But, if the task has lots of cache warmth the lower wakeup latency may be negated by running on a 'remote' cpu. -- Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
