OK, so I have the below; however on a second look, Paul, shouldn't that
update_cfs_shares() call be in entity_tick(), right after calling
update_cfs_rq_blocked_load(). Because placing it in
update_cfs_rq_blocked_load() means its now called twice on the
enqueue/dequeue paths through:
{en,de}queue_entity()
{en,de}queue_entity_load_avg()
update_cfs_rq_blocked_load()
update_cfs_shares()
---
Subject: sched: Ensure update_cfs_shares() is called for parents of
continuously-running tasks
From: Max Hailperin <m...@gustavus.edu>
We typically update a task_group's shares within the dequeue/enqueue
path. However, continuously running tasks sharing a CPU are not
subject to these updates as they are only put/picked. Unfortunately,
when we reverted f269ae046 (in 17bc14b7), we lost the augmenting
periodic update that was supposed to account for this; resulting in a
potential loss of fairness.
To fix this, re-introduce the explicit update in
update_cfs_rq_blocked_load() [called via entity_tick()].
Cc: sta...@kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Paul Turner <p...@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1531,6 +1531,7 @@ static void update_cfs_rq_blocked_load(s
}
__update_cfs_rq_tg_load_contrib(cfs_rq, force_update);
+ update_cfs_shares(cfs_rq);
}
static inline void update_rq_runnable_avg(struct rq *rq, int runnable)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
