From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 13/14] sched: cleanup wake_idle power saving
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:21:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090903132213.321860421@chello.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20090903132145.482814810@chello.nl
[-- Attachment #1: sched-lb-12.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2825 bytes --]
Hopefully a more readable version of the same.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
kernel/sched_fair.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1062,29 +1062,49 @@ static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *r
#define cpu_rd_active(cpu, rq) cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, rq->rd->online)
+/*
+ * At POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP level, if both this_cpu and prev_cpu
+ * are idle and this is not a kernel thread and this task's affinity
+ * allows it to be moved to preferred cpu, then just move!
+ *
+ * XXX - can generate significant overload on perferred_wakeup_cpu
+ * with plenty of idle cpus, leading to a significant loss in
+ * throughput.
+ *
+ * Returns: < 0 - no placement decision made
+ * >= 0 - place on cpu
+ */
+static int wake_idle_power_save(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ int wakeup_cpu;
+
+ if (sched_mc_power_savings < POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP)
+ return -1;
+
+ if (!idle_cpu(cpu) || !idle_cpu(this_cpu))
+ return -1;
+
+ if (!p->mm || (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD))
+ return -1;
+
+ wakeup_cpu = cpu_rq(this_cpu)->rd->sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu;
+
+ if (!cpu_isset(wakeup_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
+ return -1;
+
+ return wakeup_cpu;
+}
+
static int wake_idle(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
{
+ struct rq *task_rq = task_rq(p);
struct sched_domain *sd;
int i;
- unsigned int chosen_wakeup_cpu;
- int this_cpu;
- struct rq *task_rq = task_rq(p);
-
- /*
- * At POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP level, if both this_cpu and prev_cpu
- * are idle and this is not a kernel thread and this task's affinity
- * allows it to be moved to preferred cpu, then just move!
- */
- this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- chosen_wakeup_cpu =
- cpu_rq(this_cpu)->rd->sched_mc_preferred_wakeup_cpu;
-
- if (sched_mc_power_savings >= POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE_WAKEUP &&
- idle_cpu(cpu) && idle_cpu(this_cpu) &&
- p->mm && !(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) &&
- cpu_isset(chosen_wakeup_cpu, p->cpus_allowed))
- return chosen_wakeup_cpu;
+ i = wake_idle_power_save(cpu, p);
+ if (i >= 0)
+ return i;
/*
* If it is idle, then it is the best cpu to run this task.
@@ -1093,7 +1113,7 @@ static int wake_idle(int cpu, struct tas
* Siblings must be also busy(in most cases) as they didn't already
* pickup the extra load from this cpu and hence we need not check
* sibling runqueue info. This will avoid the checks and cache miss
- * penalities associated with that.
+ * penalties associated with that.
*/
if (idle_cpu(cpu) || cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.nr_running > 1)
return cpu;
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-03 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-03 13:21 [RFC][PATCH 00/14] load-balancing and cpu_power -v3 Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/14] sched: restore __cpu_power to a straight sum of power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/14] sched: SD_PREFER_SIBLING Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/14] sched: update the cpu_power sum during load-balance Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/14] sched: add smt_gain Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/14] sched: dynamic cpu_power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/14] sched: scale down cpu_power due to RT tasks Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/14] sched: try to deal with low capacity Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/14] sched: remove reciprocal for cpu_power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/14] x86: move APERF/MPERF into a X86_FEATURE Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/14] x86: generic aperf/mperf code Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 9:19 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-09-04 9:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 9:34 ` Thomas Renninger
2009-09-04 14:22 ` Dave Jones
2009-09-04 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-04 17:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/14] sched: provide arch_scale_freq_power Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/14] x86: sched: provide arch implementations using aperf/mperf Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-03 13:21 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-09-03 13:21 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/14] sched: cleanup wake_idle Peter Zijlstra
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=20090903132213.321860421@chello.nl \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=andreas.herrmann3@amd.com \
--cc=balbir@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.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