From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, roland@redhat.com, efault@gmx.de, rjw@sisk.pl,
jdike@addtoit.com, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch] don't preempt not TASK_RUNNING tasks
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:03:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1237543392.24626.49.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1LkbGe-00039U-Hc@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 10:43 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> I tested this one, and I think it makes sense in any case as an
> optimization. It should also be good for -stable kernels.
>
> Does it look OK?
The idea is good, but there is a risk of preemption latencies here. Some
code paths aren't real quick between setting ->state != TASK_RUNNING and
calling schedule.
[ Both quick: as in O(1) and few instructions ]
So if we're going to do this, we'd need to audit all such code paths --
and there be lots.
The first line of attack for this problem is making wait_task_inactive()
sucks less, which shouldn't be too hard, that unconditional 1 jiffy
sleep is simply retarded.
> Index: linux.git/kernel/sched.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.git.orig/kernel/sched.c 2009-03-20 09:40:47.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux.git/kernel/sched.c 2009-03-20 10:28:56.000000000 +0100
> @@ -4632,6 +4632,10 @@ asmlinkage void __sched preempt_schedule
> if (likely(ti->preempt_count || irqs_disabled()))
> return;
>
> + /* No point in preempting we are just about to go to sleep. */
> + if (current->state != TASK_RUNNING)
> + return;
> +
> do {
> add_preempt_count(PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> schedule();
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-20 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-20 9:43 [patch] don't preempt not TASK_RUNNING tasks Miklos Szeredi
2009-03-20 10:03 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-03-20 10:37 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-03-20 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-20 11:25 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-03-20 11:39 ` Ingo Molnar
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=1237543392.24626.49.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.