Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:16:56 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] sched: Account rr and fifo tasks separately
Message-ID: <20151202141655.GE14766@lerouge>
References: <1447424529-13671-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1447424529-13671-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20151202125339.GE9928@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151202125339.GE9928@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1014
Lines: 24

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 01:53:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 03:22:06PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > In order to evaluate tick dependency, we need to account SCHED_RR and
> > SCHED_FIFO tasks separately as those policies don't have the same
> > preemption requirements.
> > 
> > We still keep rt_nr_running as a cache to avoid additions between nr_rr
> > and nr_fifo all over the place.
> 
> In which case you only need one of nr_fifo/nr_rr. Less accounting is
> better.
> 
> Pick the one you need for the nohz_full condition, and leave the other.
> A quick look at sched_can_stop_tick() seems to suggest nr_rr is the
> interesting one. nr_rr < 2 should allow stopping the tick.

Sounds pretty good! I'm going to do that!

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/