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)
{
next prev parent 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.