Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz_full: Make sched_should_stop_tick() more
 conservative
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
References: <1459539771-4251-1-git-send-email-cmetcalf@mellanox.com>
 <1459797143.6219.22.camel@redhat.com>
 <D73EF873-2EFD-4F55-9CF1-D7E6ED8D1EC9@infradead.org>
 <CANRm+Cx1wTdGugA1QoyuMtzzHmUY6iF=Ei3BuGoBiPoW-xsC7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160421144213.GN3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160421160315.GK24771@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>
Message-ID: <571E8C6F.8010701@mellanox.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:30:23 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160421160315.GK24771@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:23
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2016 21:30:42.7707 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR05MB1695
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1058
Lines: 26

On 4/21/2016 12:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 04:42:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> So I think that is indeed the right thing here. But looking at this
>> function I think there's more problems with it.
>>
>> It seems to assume that if there's FIFO tasks, those will run. This is
>> incorrect. The FIFO task can have a lower prio than an RR task, in which
>> case the RR task will run.
>>
>> So the whole fifo_nr_running test seems misplaced, it should go after
>> the rr_nr_running tests. That is, only if !rr_nr_running, can we use
>> fifo_nr_running like this.
> A little something like so perhaps; can anybody test?

Tested-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>

To be clear, I only tested that it fixed my original bug, where we weren't
kicking a remote cpu when we should have been; I have not tested that
it works properly in the presence of RR or FIFO scheduled tasks.

But this or something like it should definitely go into 4.6 before it's done.

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Mellanox Technologies
http://www.mellanox.com