All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Chen Shang <shangcs@gmail.com>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rml@tech9.net,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel <linux-2.6.11.10> kernel/sched.c
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:11:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050523071103.GA30016@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <855e4e460505212141105e6b43@mail.gmail.com>


* Chen Shang <shangcs@gmail.com> wrote:

> /*===== ISSUE ====*/
> My second version of patch has a defect.
> 
> +  if (unlikely(old_prio != next->prio))             {
> +      dequeue_task(next, array);  --> ### dequeue should against
> old_prio, NOT next->prio ###
> +      enqueue_task(next, array);
> +  }

indeed...

> unforunately, dequeue_task does not accept the third parameter to make
> adjustment. Personally, I feel it's good to add extra function as my
> first version of patch to combine dequeue and enqueue together.
> Reasons as following:
> 1) adding the third parameter to dequeue_task() would cause other
> places' code change;
> 2) for schedule functions, performance is the first consideration.
> Notice both dequeue_task() and enqueue_task() are NOT inline.
> Combining those two in one saves one function call overhead;

the real problem comes from recalc_task_prio() having a side-effect, 
which makes requeueing of tasks harder. The solution is to return the 
prio from recalc_task_prio() - see the tested patch below. Agreed?

	Ingo

--

micro-optimize task requeueing in schedule() & clean up 
recalc_task_prio().

From: Chen Shang <shangcs@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

--- linux/kernel/sched.c.orig
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c
@@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ static inline void __activate_idle_task(
 	rq->nr_running++;
 }
 
-static void recalc_task_prio(task_t *p, unsigned long long now)
+static int recalc_task_prio(task_t *p, unsigned long long now)
 {
 	/* Caller must always ensure 'now >= p->timestamp' */
 	unsigned long long __sleep_time = now - p->timestamp;
@@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ static void recalc_task_prio(task_t *p, 
 		}
 	}
 
-	p->prio = effective_prio(p);
+	return effective_prio(p);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -757,7 +757,7 @@ static void activate_task(task_t *p, run
 	}
 #endif
 
-	recalc_task_prio(p, now);
+	p->prio = recalc_task_prio(p, now);
 
 	/*
 	 * This checks to make sure it's not an uninterruptible task
@@ -2751,7 +2751,7 @@ asmlinkage void __sched schedule(void)
 	struct list_head *queue;
 	unsigned long long now;
 	unsigned long run_time;
-	int cpu, idx;
+	int cpu, idx, new_prio;
 
 	/*
 	 * Test if we are atomic.  Since do_exit() needs to call into
@@ -2873,9 +2873,14 @@ go_idle:
 			delta = delta * (ON_RUNQUEUE_WEIGHT * 128 / 100) / 128;
 
 		array = next->array;
-		dequeue_task(next, array);
-		recalc_task_prio(next, next->timestamp + delta);
-		enqueue_task(next, array);
+		new_prio = recalc_task_prio(next, next->timestamp + delta);
+
+		if (unlikely(next->prio != new_prio)) {
+			dequeue_task(next, array);
+			next->prio = new_prio;
+			enqueue_task(next, array);
+		} else
+			requeue_task(next, array);
 	}
 	next->activated = 0;
 switch_tasks:

  reply	other threads:[~2005-05-23  7:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-05-19 16:56 [PATCH] kernel <linux-2.6.11.10> kernel/sched.c chen Shang
2005-05-20  3:26 ` Nick Piggin
2005-05-20  4:17   ` chen Shang
2005-05-20  4:32     ` Lee Revell
2005-05-20  5:13     ` Nick Piggin
2005-05-20  7:12       ` chen Shang
2005-05-20  7:21         ` Nick Piggin
2005-05-20  7:36           ` Con Kolivas
2005-05-20 13:41             ` chen Shang
2005-05-20  9:49         ` Ingo Molnar
2005-05-20 10:40           ` Con Kolivas
2005-05-20 11:34             ` Ingo Molnar
2005-05-22  4:41               ` Chen Shang
2005-05-23  7:11                 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-05-23 14:45                   ` Chen Shang

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=20050523071103.GA30016@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=rml@tech9.net \
    --cc=shangcs@gmail.com \
    /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.