From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@gmail.com>
To: frank.rowand@am.sony.com
Cc: frank.rowand@gmail.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Reduce runqueue lock contention -v2
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 11:39:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D0A6B03.6080603@am.sony.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D0A6A40.2040907@am.sony.com>
On 12/16/10 11:36, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>
> patch 1 of 2
The email that explains the context for this does not seem to have gotten
through to the list. Here is the email that this patch should have been
a reply to:
On 12/16/10 06:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi, here a new posting of my scary patch(es) ;-)
>
> These actually survive a sembench run (and everything else I threw at it).
> The discussion between Mike and Frank over the task_running() check made me
> realize what was wrong with the previous one.
>
> As it turns out, what was needed (p->oncpu) was something Thomas wanted me
> to do for an entirely different reason (see patch #2).
>
> Frank's patch, while encouraging me to poke at it again, has a number of
> very fundamental problems with it, the most serious one being that it
> completely wrecks the wake-up load-balancing.
And also as Peter pointed out when I posted the patch (thank you Peter),
I did not properly handle the return value for try_to_wake_up() - a rather
fatal flaw.
By coincidence, I was about to post a new version of my scary patch when
this email arrived. I'll post my patches as a reply to this email, then
read through Peter's.
Frank's patch, Version 2
Changes from Version 1:
- Ensure return value of try_to_wake_up() is correct, even when queueing
wake up on a different cpu.
- rq->lock contention reduction not as good as first version
patch 1
The core changes. All the scary lock related stuff.
select_task_rq() uses the smp_processor_id() of the old task_cpu(p) instead
of the waking smp_processor_id().
patch 2
select_task_rq() uses the smp_processor_id() of the waking smp_processor_id()
Limitations
x86 only
Tests
- tested on 2 cpu x86_64
- very simplistic workload
- results:
rq->lock contention count reduced by ~ 75%
rq->lock contention wait time reduced by ~ 70%
test duration reduction is in the noise
rq->lock contention improvement is slightly better with just patch 1
applied, but the difference is in the noise
Todo
- handle cpu being offlined
-Frank
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-16 19:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-16 14:56 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Reduce runqueue lock contention -v2 Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 14:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched: Always provide p->oncpu Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-18 1:03 ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-16 14:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] mutex: Use p->oncpu for the adaptive spin Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 17:34 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-16 19:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-17 19:17 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-16 14:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] sched: Change the ttwu success details Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 15:23 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-16 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 15:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 15:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-16 15:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-18 1:05 ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-16 14:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] sched: Clean up ttwu stats Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-18 1:09 ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-16 14:56 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched: Reduce ttwu rq->lock contention Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 15:31 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-16 17:58 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-16 18:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-16 18:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 19:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 19:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 20:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-17 3:06 ` Yan, Zheng
2010-12-17 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-17 16:54 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-17 17:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-17 18:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-17 19:28 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-17 21:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-18 14:49 ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-18 20:08 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-19 11:20 ` Yong Zhang
2010-12-17 18:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-17 17:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-12-17 18:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-17 18:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 19:12 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/5] Reduce runqueue lock contention -v2 Frank Rowand
2010-12-16 19:36 ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-16 19:39 ` Frank Rowand [this message]
2010-12-16 19:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-16 20:45 ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-16 19:36 ` Frank Rowand
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=4D0A6B03.6080603@am.sony.com \
--to=frank.rowand@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=frank.rowand@am.sony.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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.