From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [.32-rc3] scheduler: iwlagn consistently high in "waiting for CPU"
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:35:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1255070103.7639.30.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200910082259.35204.elendil@planet.nl>
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 22:59 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 08 October 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I still see very high latencies coming out of idle (last noted was >
> > 300ms, NO_HZ) with this patch,
> >
> > Like this:
> >
> > Cause Maximum Percentage
> > Scheduler: waiting for cpu 604.2 msec 49.0 %
>
> I'm not seeing anything even remotely like that.
Instrumenting, I saw (stale) clock deltas of >900ms coming out of idle,
delta being the difference between rq->clock when we hit update_curr()
and discover that this queue was idle, and what the clock will be an
instant or two later when somebody winds the clock.
I've been watching latencytop for a while now to make sure latency is
really dead. I see no twitching, so...
sched: update the clock of runqueue select_task_rq() selected.
In try_to_wake_up(), we update the runqueue clock, but select_task_rq()
may select a different runqueue than the one we updated, leaving the new
runqueue's clock stale for a bit.
This patch cures occasional huge latencies reported by latencytop when
coming out of idle on a mostly idle NO_HZ box.
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
---
kernel/sched.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2311,7 +2311,7 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
{
int cpu, orig_cpu, this_cpu, success = 0;
unsigned long flags;
- struct rq *rq;
+ struct rq *rq, *orig_rq;
if (!sched_feat(SYNC_WAKEUPS))
wake_flags &= ~WF_SYNC;
@@ -2319,7 +2319,7 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
this_cpu = get_cpu();
smp_wmb();
- rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
+ rq = orig_rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
update_rq_clock(rq);
if (!(p->state & state))
goto out;
@@ -2350,6 +2350,10 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_st
set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
+
+ if (rq != orig_rq)
+ update_rq_clock(rq);
+
WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
cpu = task_cpu(p);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-09 6:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-05 13:00 [.32-rc3] scheduler: iwlagn consistently high in "waiting for CPU" Frans Pop
2009-10-05 14:13 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-05 14:24 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-06 15:49 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-07 17:10 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-07 18:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-07 18:34 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-08 4:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 6:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 13:40 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-08 14:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 14:54 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 14:55 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-08 15:09 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-08 18:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 20:34 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2009-10-09 3:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-09 3:51 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2009-10-08 20:59 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-09 3:04 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-09 6:35 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2009-10-09 7:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-09 7:55 ` Sedat Dilek
2009-10-09 8:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-09 16:27 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-09 20:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 11:24 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 13:09 ` Frans Pop
2009-10-08 13:18 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-10-08 13:45 ` Arjan van de Ven
2009-10-08 14:15 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1255070103.7639.30.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=elendil@planet.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--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 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).