All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] preempt_count rework
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:01:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1376557265.5798.29.camel@marge.simpson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <520BA590.2030808@zytor.com>

On Wed, 2013-08-14 at 08:43 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: 
> On 08/14/2013 08:39 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > ..so could the rq = cpu_rq(cpu) sequence be improved cycle expenditure
> > wise by squirreling rq pointer away in a percpu this_rq, and replacing
> > cpu_rq(cpu) above with a __this_cpu_read(this_rq) version of this_rq()?
> > 
> 
> Yes.

Oh darn, that worked out about as you'd expect.  Cycles are so far down
in the frog hair as to be invisible, so not be worth the space cost.

pinned sched_yield proggy, switches/sec, 3 boots/5 runs each:
                                                                            avg
pre:      1650522     1580422     1604430     1611697     1612928     1611999.8
          1682789     1609103     1603866     1559040     1607424     1612444.4
          1608265     1607513     1606730     1607079     1635914     1613100.2
                                                                      1612514.8  avg avg  1.000

post:     1649396     1595364     1621720     1643665     1641829     1630394.8
          1571322     1591638     1575406     1629960     1592129     1592091.0
          1641807     1622591     1620581     1651145     1663025     1639829.8
                                                                      1620771.8  avg avg  1.005

---
 kernel/sched/core.c  |    8 ++++----
 kernel/sched/sched.h |   12 +++++++++---
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ void start_bandwidth_timer(struct hrtime
 
 DEFINE_MUTEX(sched_domains_mutex);
 DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct rq, runqueues);
+DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct rq *, runqueue);
 
 static void update_rq_clock_task(struct rq *rq, s64 delta);
 
@@ -2390,7 +2391,7 @@ static void __sched __schedule(void)
 need_resched:
 	preempt_disable();
 	cpu = smp_processor_id();
-	rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+	rq = this_rq();
 	rcu_note_context_switch(cpu);
 	prev = rq->curr;
 
@@ -2447,8 +2448,7 @@ static void __sched __schedule(void)
 		 * this task called schedule() in the past. prev == current
 		 * is still correct, but it can be moved to another cpu/rq.
 		 */
-		cpu = smp_processor_id();
-		rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+		rq = this_rq();
 	} else
 		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
 
@@ -6470,7 +6470,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
 	for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
 		struct rq *rq;
 
-		rq = cpu_rq(i);
+		rq = per_cpu(runqueue, i) = &per_cpu(runqueues, i);
 		raw_spin_lock_init(&rq->lock);
 		rq->nr_running = 0;
 		rq->calc_load_active = 0;
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -537,11 +537,17 @@ static inline int cpu_of(struct rq *rq)
 
 DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rq, runqueues);
 
-#define cpu_rq(cpu)		(&per_cpu(runqueues, (cpu)))
-#define this_rq()		(&__get_cpu_var(runqueues))
+/*
+ * Runqueue pointer for use by macros to avoid costly code generated
+ * by taking the address of percpu variables.
+ */
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct rq *, runqueue);
+
+#define cpu_rq(cpu)		(per_cpu(runqueue, (cpu)))
+#define this_rq()		(__this_cpu_read(runqueue))
 #define task_rq(p)		cpu_rq(task_cpu(p))
 #define cpu_curr(cpu)		(cpu_rq(cpu)->curr)
-#define raw_rq()		(&__raw_get_cpu_var(runqueues))
+#define raw_rq()		(__raw_get_cpu_var(runqueue))
 
 static inline u64 rq_clock(struct rq *rq)
 {

  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-15  9:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-14 13:15 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] preempt_count rework Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 13:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched: Introduce preempt_count accessor functions Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 13:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] sched: Add NEED_RESCHED to the preempt_count Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 13:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] sched, arch: Create asm/preempt.h Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 13:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] sched: Create more preempt_count accessors Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 13:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched, x86: Provide a per-cpu preempt_count implementation Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 13:47 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/5] preempt_count rework H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-14 15:39   ` Mike Galbraith
2013-08-14 15:43     ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-15  9:01       ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2013-08-14 16:06     ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 16:14       ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-14 16:52         ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 16:58           ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-08-14 16:04   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 17:31     ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 16:48 ` Andi Kleen
2013-08-14 16:55   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-14 17:12     ` Andi Kleen

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=1376557265.5798.29.camel@marge.simpson.net \
    --to=bitbucket@online.de \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 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.