From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@am.sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 14/18] sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:59:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110104150103.012710349@chello.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20110104145929.772813816@chello.nl
[-- Attachment #1: sched-ttwu-optimize.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3795 bytes --]
Currently ttwu() does two rq->lock acquisitions, once on the task's
old rq, holding it over the p->state fiddling and load-balance pass.
Then it drops the old rq->lock to acquire the new rq->lock.
By having serialized ttwu(), p->sched_class, p->cpus_allowed with
p->pi_lock, we can now drop the whole first rq->lock acquisition.
The p->pi_lock serializing concurrent ttwu() calls protects p->state,
which we will set to TASK_WAKING to bridge possible p->pi_lock to
rq->lock gaps and serialize set_task_cpu() calls against
task_rq_lock().
The p->pi_lock serialization of p->sched_class allows us to call
scheduling class methods without holding the rq->lock, and the
serialization of p->cpus_allowed allows us to do the load-balancing
bits without races.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
kernel/sched.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
kernel/sched_fair.c | 3 +--
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2436,69 +2436,60 @@ ttwu_post_activation(struct task_struct
* Returns %true if @p was woken up, %false if it was already running
* or @state didn't match @p's state.
*/
-static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state,
- int wake_flags)
+static int
+try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
{
- int cpu, orig_cpu, this_cpu, success = 0;
+ int cpu, this_cpu, success = 0;
unsigned long flags;
- unsigned long en_flags = ENQUEUE_WAKEUP;
struct rq *rq;
this_cpu = get_cpu();
smp_wmb();
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
- rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
if (!(p->state & state))
goto out;
cpu = task_cpu(p);
- if (p->on_rq)
- goto out_running;
+ if (p->on_rq) {
+ rq = __task_rq_lock(p);
+ if (p->on_rq)
+ goto out_running;
+ __task_rq_unlock(rq);
+ }
- orig_cpu = cpu;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
- if (unlikely(task_running(rq, p)))
- goto out_activate;
+ while (p->on_cpu)
+ cpu_relax();
p->sched_contributes_to_load = !!task_contributes_to_load(p);
p->state = TASK_WAKING;
- if (p->sched_class->task_waking) {
+ if (p->sched_class->task_waking)
p->sched_class->task_waking(p);
- en_flags |= ENQUEUE_WAKING;
- }
cpu = select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_WAKE, wake_flags);
- if (cpu != orig_cpu)
- set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
- __task_rq_unlock(rq);
+#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
- /*
- * We migrated the task without holding either rq->lock, however
- * since the task is not on the task list itself, nobody else
- * will try and migrate the task, hence the rq should match the
- * cpu we just moved it to.
- */
- WARN_ON(task_cpu(p) != cpu);
- WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+ if (cpu != task_cpu(p))
+ set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
if (p->sched_contributes_to_load)
rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
+#endif
-out_activate:
-#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
- activate_task(rq, p, en_flags);
+ activate_task(rq, p, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP | ENQUEUE_WAKING);
out_running:
ttwu_post_activation(p, rq, wake_flags);
ttwu_stat(rq, p, cpu, wake_flags);
success = 1;
-out:
__task_rq_unlock(rq);
+out:
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
put_cpu();
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1343,8 +1343,7 @@ static void task_waking_fair(struct task
struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
- lockdep_assert_held(&task_rq(p)->lock);
-
+ // XXX racy on 32bit
se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-04 15:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-04 14:59 [RFC][PATCH 00/18] sched: Reduce runqueue lock contention -v4 Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 01/18] sched: Always provide p->on_cpu Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 02/18] mutex: Use p->on_cpu for the adaptive spin Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 03/18] sched: Change the ttwu success details Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 04/18] sched: Clean up ttwu stats Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 05/18] sched: Provide p->on_rq Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-05 8:13 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-05 9:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-29 0:10 ` Frank Rowand
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 06/18] sched: Serialize p->cpus_allowed and ttwu() using p->pi_lock Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 07/18] sched: Drop the rq argument to sched_class::select_task_rq() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-06 13:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-06 14:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 08/18] sched: Remove rq argument to sched_class::task_waking() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 09/18] sched: Delay task_contributes_to_load() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 10/18] sched: Also serialize ttwu_local() with p->pi_lock Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 11/18] sched: Add p->pi_lock to task_rq_lock() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-05 18:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-01-05 19:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-29 0:21 ` Frank Rowand
2011-02-03 17:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-02-03 17:49 ` Frank Rowand
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 12/18] sched: Drop rq->lock from first part of wake_up_new_task() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 13/18] sched: Drop rq->lock from sched_exec() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-01-06 16:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 14/18] sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-29 1:05 ` Frank Rowand
2011-02-03 17:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 15/18] sched: Remove rq argument from ttwu_stat() Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 16/18] sched: Rename ttwu_post_activation Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-29 1:08 ` Frank Rowand
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 17/18] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to the remote cpu Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-05 21:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-01-06 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-07 15:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-01-18 16:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-19 19:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-01-29 0:04 ` Frank Rowand
2011-02-03 17:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 14:59 ` [RFC][PATCH 18/18] sched: Sort hotplug vs ttwu queueing Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-05 20:47 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-01-06 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-04 15:16 ` [RFC][PATCH 00/18] sched: Reduce runqueue lock contention -v4 Ingo Molnar
2011-01-29 1:20 ` Frank Rowand
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=20110104150103.012710349@chello.nl \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=frank.rowand@am.sony.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.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