From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>, Mark_H_Johnson@RAYTHEON.COM
Subject: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q0
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 14:03:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040828120309.GA17121@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040824061459.GA29630@elte.hu>
i've uploaded the -Q0 patch:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/voluntary-preempt/voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q0
note that since -bk4 doesnt exist yet, i've uploaded a patch that brings
2.6.8.1 up to BK-curr:
http://redhat.com/~mingo/voluntary-preempt/diff-bk-040828-2.6.8.1.bz2
apply this patch to 2.6.8.1 before applying the -Q0 patch.
Changes:
there are a number of fundamental changes in the -Q0, of both structural
and functional nature.
Structural changes:
Linus' current BK tree (what will be 2.6.9-rc1-bk4) has just merged most
of the might_sleep() improvements we did for -mm and a bunch of other
changes that were part of the voluntary-preempt patchset. So i've
started a pre-merge cleanup of the voluntary-preempt patchset, to be
able to merge as much of the remaining stuff upstream as possible. This
doesnt (necessarily) mean voluntary-preempt itself will be merged, it
means that the independent latency improvements move out of the
voluntary-preemption umbrella and will go upstream.
About the cleanup:
Firstly, the user controls have changed. There are now 4 independent
flags in /proc/sys/kernel/: kernel_preemption, voluntary_preemption,
softirq_preemption and hardirq_preemption - each default to a value of 1
(enabled). NOTE: levels 2,3 for voluntary_preemption is not valid
anymore, each of the flags can be 0 or 1. The flags control what their
name says, for best latencies one should keep all of them enabled.
Similarly, there are 4 independent options for the .config:
CONFIG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, CONFIG_PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS and
CONFIG_PREEMPT_HARDIRQS. (In theory all of these options should compile
independently, but i've only tested all-enabled so far.)
Internally, the voluntary_ prefixed conditional reschedule variants were
replaced by the existing cond_resched(), cond_resched_lock(),
need_resched()/etc. infrastructure.
Functional changes:
i took another look at SMP latencies, the last larger chunk of code that
produced millisec-category latencies. CONFIG_PREEMPT tries to solve some
of the SMP issues but there were still lots of problems remaining: main
problem area is spinlocks nested at multiple levels. If a piece of code
(e.g. the MM or ext3's journalling code) does the following:
spin_lock(&spinlock_1);
...
spin_lock(&spinlock_2);
...
then even with CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled, current kernels may spin on
spinlock_2 indefinitely. A number of critical sections break their long
paths by using cond_resched_lock(), but this does not break the path on
SMP, because need_resched() is not set in the above case.
(The -mm kernel introduced a couple of patches that try to drop
spinlocks unconditionally at a high frequency: but besides being a
kludge it's also a performance problem, we keep
dropping/waiting/retaking locks quite frequently. That solution also
doesnt solve the problem of cond_resched_lock() not working on SMP.)
to solve the problem i've introduced a new spinlock field,
lock->break_lock, which signals towards the holding CPU that a
spinlock-break is requested by another CPU. This field is only set if a
CPU is spinning in __preempt_spin_lock [at any locking depth], so the
default overhead is zero. I've extended cond_resched_lock() to check for
this flag - in this case we can also save a reschedule. I've added the
lock_need_resched(lock) and need_lockbreak(lock) methods to check for
the need to break out of a critical section.
preliminary results on a dual x86 box show a dramatic reduction in
latencies on SMP - where there used to be 5-10 msec latencies there are
close-to-UP latencies now. But it needs more testing.
the -Q0 patch also adds a number of lock-breaks that are part of the -mm
tree: e.g. the PTY lock-break.
please re-send any patches that i havent merged yet, and re-report
latencies that still occur with -Q0.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-28 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 93+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-23 22:18 [patch] PPC/PPC64 port of voluntary preempt patch Scott Wood
2004-08-24 6:14 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P9 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-24 17:43 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-24 20:32 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-24 20:53 ` Scott Wood
2004-08-24 19:20 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-24 22:47 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-25 2:00 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-25 3:17 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-25 3:22 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-25 14:34 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-25 16:00 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-25 3:26 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-25 9:58 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P9 : oprofile latency at 3.3ms P.O. Gaillard
2004-08-26 21:39 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P9 Lee Revell
2004-08-27 16:54 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-28 7:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-28 15:10 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-28 12:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-30 9:27 ` voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P9 : big latency when logging on console P.O. Gaillard
2004-08-30 9:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-30 12:25 ` P.O. Gaillard
2004-08-30 9:48 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.8.1-P9 : a few submillisecond latencies P.O. Gaillard
2004-08-28 12:03 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2004-08-28 16:18 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q0 Felipe Alfaro Solana
2004-08-28 16:50 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-28 17:52 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-28 19:44 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q2 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-28 20:01 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-28 20:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-28 20:08 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-28 20:10 ` Daniel Schmitt
2004-08-28 20:31 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q3 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-28 21:10 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-28 21:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-28 21:16 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-28 23:51 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 2:35 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 5:43 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q4 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-29 6:57 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-29 18:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-29 19:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-30 0:47 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-30 3:42 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-30 13:06 ` Alan Cox
2004-08-30 17:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 16:39 ` K.R. Foley
2004-08-30 9:06 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q5 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-30 14:25 ` Thomas Charbonnel
2004-08-30 18:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 19:23 ` Thomas Charbonnel
2004-08-31 19:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 19:45 ` Thomas Charbonnel
2004-08-31 6:40 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-31 6:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 23:03 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-01 15:52 ` Martin Josefsson
2004-09-01 21:15 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-01 21:30 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-31 7:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 19:21 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-31 19:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 19:47 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-31 19:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 20:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 20:10 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-31 20:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 20:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 20:34 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-31 20:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-31 20:41 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-31 17:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2004-09-01 1:43 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-01 2:30 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-01 7:27 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-01 8:29 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q6 Ingo Molnar
2004-09-01 13:51 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q7 Ingo Molnar
2004-09-01 17:09 ` Thomas Charbonnel
2004-09-01 19:03 ` K.R. Foley
2004-09-01 20:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2004-09-01 20:16 ` Lee Revell
2004-09-01 20:53 ` K.R. Foley
[not found] ` <41367E5D.3040605@cybsft.com>
2004-09-02 5:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-02 5:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-30 12:52 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q3 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-29 7:40 ` Matt Heler
2004-08-24 19:51 ` [patch] PPC/PPC64 port of voluntary preempt patch Scott Wood
2004-08-26 3:17 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-26 16:38 ` Scott Wood
2004-08-27 1:18 ` Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano
2004-08-28 12:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-08-28 13:01 ` [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q1 Ingo Molnar
2004-08-30 1:06 ` Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano
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=20040828120309.GA17121@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=Mark_H_Johnson@RAYTHEON.COM \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rlrevell@joe-job.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