public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for PLE handler
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:03:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1347293035.2124.22.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1347283005.10325.55.camel@oc6622382223.ibm.com>

On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 08:16 -0500, Andrew Theurer wrote:
> > > @@ -4856,8 +4859,6 @@ again:
> > >     if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
> > >             goto out;
> > > 
> > > -   if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
> > > -           goto out;
> > 
> > Is it possible that by this time the current thread takes double rq
> > lock, thread p could actually be running?  i.e is there merit to keep
> > this check around even with your similar check above?
> 
> I think that's a good idea.  I'll add that back in. 

Right, it needs to still be there, the test before acquiring p_rq is an
optimistic test to avoid work, but you have to still test it once you
acquire p_rq since the rest of the code relies on this not being so.

How about something like this instead.. ?

---
 kernel/sched/core.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index c46a011..c9ecab2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4300,6 +4300,23 @@ void __sched yield(void)
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
 
+/*
+ * Tests preconditions required for sched_class::yield_to().
+ */
+static bool __yield_to_candidate(struct task_struct *curr, struct task_struct *p)
+{
+	if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
+		return false;
+
+	if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
+		return false;
+
+	if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
+		return false;
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 /**
  * yield_to - yield the current processor to another thread in
  * your thread group, or accelerate that thread toward the
@@ -4323,6 +4340,10 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
 	rq = this_rq();
 
 again:
+	/* optimistic test to avoid taking locks */
+	if (!__yield_to_candidate(curr, p))
+		goto out_irq;
+
 	p_rq = task_rq(p);
 	double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
 	while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
@@ -4330,14 +4351,9 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
 		goto again;
 	}
 
-	if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
-		goto out;
-
-	if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
-		goto out;
-
-	if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
-		goto out;
+	/* validate state, holding p_rq ensures p's state cannot change */
+	if (!__yield_to_candidate(curr, p))
+		goto out_unlock;
 
 	yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
 	if (yielded) {
@@ -4350,8 +4366,9 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
 			resched_task(p_rq->curr);
 	}
 
-out:
+out_unlock:
 	double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
+out_irq:
 	local_irq_restore(flags);
 
 	if (yielded)


  reply	other threads:[~2012-09-10 16:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-18 13:37 [PATCH RFC V5 0/3] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 13:37 ` [PATCH RFC V5 1/3] kvm/config: Add config to support ple or cpu relax optimzation Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 13:37 ` [PATCH RFC V5 2/3] kvm: Note down when cpu relax intercepted or pause loop exited Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC V5 3/3] kvm: Choose better candidate for directed yield Raghavendra K T
2012-07-18 14:39   ` Raghavendra K T
2012-07-19  9:47     ` [RESEND PATCH " Raghavendra K T
2012-07-20 17:36 ` [PATCH RFC V5 0/3] kvm: Improving directed yield in PLE handler Marcelo Tosatti
2012-07-22 12:34   ` Raghavendra K T
2012-07-22 12:43     ` Avi Kivity
2012-07-23  7:35       ` Christian Borntraeger
2012-07-22 17:58     ` Rik van Riel
2012-07-23 10:03 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-07 13:11   ` [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for " Andrew Theurer
2012-09-07 18:06     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-09-07 19:42       ` Andrew Theurer
2012-09-08  8:43         ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-09-10 13:16           ` Andrew Theurer
2012-09-10 16:03             ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-09-10 16:56               ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-09-10 17:12                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-10 19:10                   ` Raghavendra K T
2012-09-10 20:12                   ` Andrew Theurer
2012-09-10 20:19                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-10 20:31                       ` Rik van Riel
2012-09-11  6:08                     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-09-11 12:48                       ` Andrew Theurer
2012-09-11 18:27                       ` Andrew Theurer
2012-09-13 11:48                         ` Raghavendra K T
2012-09-13 21:30                           ` Andrew Theurer
2012-09-14 17:10                             ` Andrew Jones
2012-09-15 16:08                               ` Raghavendra K T
2012-09-17 13:48                                 ` Andrew Jones
2012-09-14 20:34                             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-09-17  8:02                               ` Andrew Jones
2012-09-16  8:55                             ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-17  8:10                               ` Andrew Jones
2012-09-18  3:03                               ` Andrew Theurer
2012-09-19 13:39                                 ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-13 12:13                         ` Avi Kivity
2012-09-11  7:04                   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2012-09-10 14:43         ` 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=1347293035.2124.22.camel@twins \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
    --cc=gleb@redhat.com \
    --cc=habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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