LWN.net Logo

The Linaro Connect scheduler minisummit

The Linaro Connect scheduler minisummit

Posted Feb 24, 2012 19:11 UTC (Fri) by PaulMcKenney (subscriber, #9624)
In reply to: The Linaro Connect scheduler minisummit by charlesgt_arm
Parent article: The Linaro Connect scheduler minisummit

Hello, Charles!

Good point on the choice between big and LITTLE being far more nuanced than I could hope to fully capture in a one-sentence rule of thumb. I do agree that the characteristics of a given device will often need to be taken into account.

Please accept my apologies for losing your comment about thread pools. I agree that having applications base their thread-pool sizes on the number of CPUs physically configured on the device will usually be a good place to start.

I really did mean that wakeups can be delayed until a CPU has gone offline! ;-)

Here is what can happen (or at least did happen to me as of about a year ago): (1) A kthread bound to CPU 0 is awakened. (2) Before the kthread can run, CPU 0 goes offline. (3) The kthread actually tries to start running, and as a result has its binding to the now-offline CPU broken. It is possible to handle this by careful use of preemption disabling and checks to see what CPU the kthread is actually running on.


(Log in to post comments)

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds