public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] reduce runqueue lock contention
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:09:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274389786.1674.1653.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100520204810.GA19188@think>

On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 16:48 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> This is more of a starting point than a patch, but it is something I've
> been meaning to look at for a long time.  Many different workloads end
> up hammering very hard on try_to_wake_up, to the point where the
> runqueue locks dominate CPU profiles.

Right, so one of the things that I considered was to make p->state an
atomic_t and replace the initial stage of try_to_wake_up() with
something like:

int try_to_wake_up(struct task *p, unsigned int mask, wake_flags)
{
  int state = atomic_read(&p->state);

  do {
    if (!(state & mask))
      return 0;

    state = atomic_cmpxchg(&p->state, state, TASK_WAKING);
  } while (state != TASK_WAKING);

  /* do this pending queue + ipi thing */

  return 1;
}

Also, I think we might want to put that atomic single linked list thing
into some header (using atomic_long_t or so), because I have a similar
thing living in kernel/perf_event.c, that needs to queue things from NMI
context.

The advantage of doing basically the whole enqueue on the remote cpu is
less cacheline bouncing of the runqueue structures.


  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-20 21:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-20 20:48 [PATCH RFC] reduce runqueue lock contention Chris Mason
2010-05-20 21:09 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-05-20 21:23   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-20 22:17     ` Chris Mason
2010-05-20 22:21   ` Chris Mason
2010-06-04 10:56 ` Stijn Devriendt
2010-06-04 12:00   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-05  9:37     ` Stijn Devriendt
2010-06-21 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-21 10:54   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-21 13:04     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-22 13:33       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-22 21:11         ` Ingo Molnar
2010-06-23  9:10           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-01 23:13             ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-02  1:17               ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-02  7:36               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-14  2:41       ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-14  3:42         ` Mike Galbraith
2010-12-14 21:42           ` Frank Rowand
2010-12-15 18:59         ` 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=1274389786.1674.1653.camel@laptop \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /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