From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@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 RFC 1/2] sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and target runqueue has one task
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:05:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50D15231.2060602@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50CB487C.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[I forgot to do TO to Ingo last time]
Ingo,
Could you please take this into x86 tree.
This is
Acked-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
Marcelo, do you want to add your Acked-by/Reviewed-by?
On 12/14/2012 09:10 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Could you please take this into x86 tree?
>
> Thanks,
> On 12/14/2012 05:59 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> Raghavendra,
>>
>> Please get this integrate through x86 tree (Ingo CC'ed).
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T 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>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> 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;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
>>> while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
>>> double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
>>> @@ -4310,13 +4322,13 @@ again:
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
>>> if (yielded) {
>>> @@ -4329,11 +4341,12 @@ again:
>>> resched_task(p_rq->curr);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -out:
>>> +out_unlock:
>>> double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
>>> +out_irq:
>>> local_irq_restore(flags);
>>>
>>> - if (yielded)
>>> + if (yielded > 0)
>>> schedule();
>>>
>>> return yielded;
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-19 5:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-26 12:07 [PATCH V3 RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit scenarios Raghavendra K T
2012-11-26 12:07 ` [PATCH V3 RFC 1/2] sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and target runqueue has one task Raghavendra K T
2012-11-26 13:35 ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-27 10:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-27 14:04 ` Andrew Theurer
2012-11-28 7:03 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-27 14:23 ` Chegu Vinod
[not found] ` <50B68F94.3080907@hp.com>
2012-11-29 2:00 ` Andrew Theurer
[not found] ` <50B6B5B5.5060108@hp.com>
2012-11-29 2:20 ` Chegu Vinod
2012-12-14 0:29 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-12-14 15:40 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-12-19 5:35 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2012-11-26 12:08 ` [PATCH V3 RFC 2/2] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for potential undercommit case Raghavendra K T
2012-11-26 13:43 ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-26 14:06 ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-27 10:27 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-27 13:22 ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-28 1:12 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-28 5:10 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-29 12:16 ` Gleb Natapov
2012-11-30 5:04 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-12-03 19:56 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-12-04 17:49 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-12-06 6:59 ` Raghavendra K T
2012-12-08 0:49 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-29 2:07 ` [PATCH V3 RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit scenarios Chegu Vinod
2012-11-29 9:49 ` Raghavendra K T
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=50D15231.2060602@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.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@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ouyang@cs.pitt.edu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).