From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 13/14] sched: cleanup wake_idle power saving
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:21:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090903132213.321860421@chello.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20090903132145.482814810@chello.nl
[-- Attachment #1: sched-lb-12.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2825 bytes --]
Hopefully a more readable version of the same.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
kernel/sched_fair.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1062,29 +1062,49 @@ static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *r
#define cpu_rd_active(cpu, rq) cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, rq->rd->online)
+/*
+ * At POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP level, if both this_cpu and prev_cpu
+ * are idle and this is not a kernel thread and this task's affinity
+ * allows it to be moved to preferred cpu, then just move!
+ *
+ * XXX - can generate significant overload on perferred_wakeup_cpu
+ * with plenty of idle cpus, leading to a significant loss in
+ * throughput.
+ *
+ * Returns: < 0 - no placement decision made
+ * >= 0 - place on cpu
+ */
+static int wake_idle_power_save(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ int wakeup_cpu;
+
+ if (sched_mc_power_savings < POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP)
+ return -1;
+
+ if (!idle_cpu(cpu) || !idle_cpu(this_cpu))
+ return -1;
+
+ if (!p->mm || (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
+ return -1;
+
+ wakeup_cpu = cpu_rq(this_cpu)->rd->sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu;
+
+ if (!cpu_isset(wakeup_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
+ return -1;
+
+ return wakeup_cpu;
+}
+
static int wake_idle(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
{
+ struct rq *task_rq = task_rq(p);
struct sched_domain *sd;
int i;
- unsigned int chosen_wakeup_cpu;
- int this_cpu;
- struct rq *task_rq = task_rq(p);
-
- /*
- * At POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP level, if both this_cpu and prev_cpu
- * are idle and this is not a kernel thread and this task's affinity
- * allows it to be moved to preferred cpu, then just move!
- */
- this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- chosen_wakeup_cpu =
- cpu_rq(this_cpu)->rd->sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu;
-
- if (sched_mc_power_savings >= POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP &&
- idle_cpu(cpu) && idle_cpu(this_cpu) &&
- p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) &&
- cpu_isset(chosen_wakeup_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
- return chosen_wakeup_cpu;
+ i = wake_idle_power_save(cpu, p);
+ if (i >= 0)
+ return i;
/*
* If it is idle, then it is the best cpu to run this task.
@@ -1093,7 +1113,7 @@ static int wake_idle(int cpu, struct tas
* Siblings must be also busy(in most cases) as they didn't already
* pickup the extra load from this cpu and hence we need not check
* sibling runqueue info. This will avoid the checks and cache miss
- * penalities associated with that.
+ * penalties associated with that.
*/
if (idle_cpu(cpu) || cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.nr_running > 1)
return cpu;
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-03 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-03 13:21 [RFC][PATCH 00/14] load-balancing and cpu_power -v3 Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/14] sched: restore __cpu_power to a straight sum of power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/14] sched: SD_PREFER_SIBLING Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/14] sched: update the cpu_power sum during load-balance Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/14] sched: add smt_gain Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/14] sched: dynamic cpu_power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/14] sched: scale down cpu_power due to RT tasks Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/14] sched: try to deal with low capacity Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/14] sched: remove reciprocal for cpu_power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/14] x86: move APERF/MPERF into a X86_FEATURE Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/14] x86: generic aperf/mperf code Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 9:19 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-09-04 9:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 9:34 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-09-04 14:22 ` Dave Jones
2009-09-04 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 17:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/14] sched: provide arch_scale_freq_power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/14] x86: sched: provide arch implementations using aperf/mperf Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/14] sched: cleanup wake_idle Peter Zijlstra
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=20090903132213.321860421@chello.nl \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=andreas.herrmann3@amd.com \
--cc=balbir@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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.