From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi.kivity@gmail.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@cs.pitt.edu>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 RESEND RFC 1/2] sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and target runqueue has one task
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:32:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130124103213.GD27602@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130122073913.24731.65118.sendpatchset@codeblue.in.ibm.com>
* Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> In case of undercomitted scenarios, especially in large guests
> yield_to overhead is significantly high. when run queue length of
> source and target is one, take an opportunity to bail out and return
> -ESRCH. This return condition can be further exploited to quickly come
> out of PLE handler.
>
> (History: Raghavendra initially worked on break out of kvm ple handler upon
> seeing source runqueue length = 1, but it had to export rq length).
> Peter came up with the elegant idea of return -ESRCH in scheduler core.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Raghavendra, Checking the rq length of target vcpu condition added.(thanks Avi)
> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Acked-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
> Tested-by: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
> ---
>
> kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 2d8927f..fc219a5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4289,7 +4289,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
> * It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
> * can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
> *
> - * Returns true if we indeed boosted the target task.
> + * Returns:
> + * true (>0) if we indeed boosted the target task.
> + * false (0) if we failed to boost the target.
> + * -ESRCH if there's no task to yield to.
> */
> bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
> {
> @@ -4303,6 +4306,15 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
>
> again:
> p_rq = task_rq(p);
> + /*
> + * If we're the only runnable task on the rq and target rq also
> + * has only one task, there's absolutely no point in yielding.
> + */
> + if (rq->nr_running == 1 && p_rq->nr_running == 1) {
> + yielded = -ESRCH;
> + goto out_irq;
> + }
Looks good to me in principle.
Would be nice to get more consistent benchmark numbers. Once
those are unambiguously showing that this is a win:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-24 10:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-22 7:38 [PATCH V3 RESEND RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit scenarios Raghavendra K T
2013-01-22 7:39 ` [PATCH V3 RESEND RFC 1/2] sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and target runqueue has one task Raghavendra K T
2013-01-24 10:32 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-01-25 10:40 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-25 10:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-25 15:54 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-25 18:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-27 16:58 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-25 11:05 ` Andrew Jones
2013-01-25 15:58 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-22 7:39 ` [PATCH V3 RESEND RFC 2/2] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for potential undercommit case Raghavendra K T
2013-01-23 13:57 ` [PATCH V3 RESEND RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit scenarios Andrew Jones
2013-01-24 8:27 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-29 14:05 ` Gleb Natapov
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=20130124103213.GD27602@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=avi.kivity@gmail.com \
--cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ouyang@cs.pitt.edu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox