All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ivo Sieben <meltedpianoman@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [REPOST-v2] sched: Prevent wakeup to enter critical section needlessly
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:50:42 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50AA07FA.5020503@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1353310211-3011-1-git-send-email-meltedpianoman@gmail.com>

Hi Ivo,

On 11/19/2012 01:00 PM, Ivo Sieben wrote:
> Check the waitqueue task list to be non empty before entering the critical
> section. This prevents locking the spin lock needlessly in case the queue
> was empty, and therefor also prevent scheduling overhead on a PREEMPT_RT
> system.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ivo Sieben <meltedpianoman@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
>  a second repost of this patch v2: Can anyone respond?
>  Did I apply the memory barrier correct?
> 
>  v2:
>  - We don't need the "careful" list empty, a normal list empty is sufficient:
>    if you miss an update it was just as it happened a little later.
>  - Because of memory ordering problems we can observe an unupdated list
>    administration. This can cause an wait_event-like code to miss an event.
>    Adding a memory barrier befor checking the list to be empty will guarantee we
>    evaluate a 100% updated list adminsitration.
> 
>  kernel/sched/core.c |   19 ++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 2d8927f..168a9b2 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3090,9 +3090,22 @@ void __wake_up(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
>  {
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> -	__wake_up_common(q, mode, nr_exclusive, 0, key);
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> +	/*
> +	 * We check for list emptiness outside the lock. This prevents the wake
> +	 * up to enter the critical section needlessly when the task list is
> +	 * empty.
> +	 *
> +	 * Placed a full memory barrier before checking list emptiness to make
> +	 * 100% sure this function sees an up-to-date list administration.
> +	 * Note that other code that manipulates the list uses a spin_lock and
> +	 * therefore doesn't need additional memory barriers.
> +	 */
> +	smp_mb();
> +	if (!list_empty(&q->task_list)) {
> +		spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> +		__wake_up_common(q, mode, nr_exclusive, 0, key);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> +	}
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(__wake_up);
>  
> 
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Regards
Preeti U Murthy


  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-19 10:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-24 13:06 [PATCH] RFC: sched: Prevent wakeup to enter critical section needlessly Ivo Sieben
2012-09-24 13:06 ` Ivo Sieben
2012-10-09 11:30 ` [REPOST] " Ivo Sieben
2012-10-09 11:30   ` Ivo Sieben
2012-10-09 13:37   ` Andi Kleen
2012-10-09 13:37     ` Andi Kleen
2012-10-09 14:15     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-09 15:17       ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-10-10 14:02         ` Andi Kleen
2012-10-18  8:30           ` [PATCH-v2] " Ivo Sieben
2012-10-18  8:30             ` Ivo Sieben
2012-10-25 10:12             ` [REPOST-v2] " Ivo Sieben
2012-10-25 10:12               ` Ivo Sieben
2012-11-19  7:30               ` Ivo Sieben
2012-11-19  7:30                 ` Ivo Sieben
2012-11-19 10:20                 ` Preeti U Murthy [this message]
2012-11-19 15:10                 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-19 15:34                   ` Ivo Sieben
2012-11-19 15:49                     ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-11-21 13:03                       ` Ivo Sieben
2012-11-21 13:47                         ` Alan Cox
2012-11-21 13:58                         ` Oleg Nesterov

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=50AA07FA.5020503@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=meltedpianoman@gmail.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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.