From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Move task_mm_cid_work to mm delayed work
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2024 15:33:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4c067b75e06aadd34eff5b60fc7c59967aa30809.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241205083110.180134-2-gmonaco@redhat.com>
The patch is fundamentally broken since I somehow lost the line calling
schedule_delayed_work in task_mm_cid_work to re-schedule itself.
Before sending a V2, however, I'd like to get some more insights about
the requirements of this function.
The current behaviour upstream is to call task_mm_cid_work for the task
running after the scheduler tick. The function checks that we don't run
too often for the same mm, but it seems possible that some process with
short runtime would rarely run during the tick.
The behaviour imposed by this patch (at least the intended one) is to
run the task_mm_cid_work with the configured periodicity (plus
scheduling latency) for each active mm.
This behaviour seem to me more predictable, but would that even be
required for rseq or is it just an overkill?
In other words, was the tick chosen out of simplicity or is there some
property that has to be preserved?
P.S. I run the rseq self tests on both this and the previous patch
(both broken) and saw no failure.
Thanks,
Gabriele
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-05 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-05 8:31 Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-05 14:33 ` Gabriele Monaco [this message]
2024-12-05 16:25 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-06 8:53 ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-06 14:06 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-09 8:04 ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-09 13:45 ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-09 15:33 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-09 15:48 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-11 12:27 ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-11 17:07 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-12 11:09 ` Gabriele Monaco
2024-12-12 14:06 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4c067b75e06aadd34eff5b60fc7c59967aa30809.camel@redhat.com \
--to=gmonaco@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox