From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] sched: Consolidate nohz cpu load prelude code
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:01:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130620210107.GM4082@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1371761141-25386-3-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:45:39PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Gather the common code that computes the pending idle cpu load
> to decay.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
> Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/proc.c | 40 ++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/proc.c b/kernel/sched/proc.c
> index bb3a6a0..030528a 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/proc.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/proc.c
> @@ -470,11 +470,14 @@ decay_load_missed(unsigned long load, unsigned long missed_updates, int idx)
> * scheduler tick (TICK_NSEC). With tickless idle this will not be called
> * every tick. We fix it up based on jiffies.
> */
> -static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> - unsigned long pending_updates)
> +static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load)
> {
> + unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
Isn't jiffies declared volatile? (Looks that way to me.) If so, there
is no need for ACCESS_ONCE().
> + unsigned long pending_updates;
> int i, scale;
>
> + pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
> + this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
> this_rq->nr_load_updates++;
>
> /* Update our load: */
> @@ -521,20 +524,15 @@ static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
> */
> void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
> {
> - unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
> unsigned long load = this_rq->load.weight;
> - unsigned long pending_updates;
>
> /*
> * bail if there's load or we're actually up-to-date.
> */
> - if (load || curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
> + if (load || jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
> return;
>
> - pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
> - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
> -
> - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates);
> + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -543,22 +541,16 @@ void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
> void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
> {
> struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
> - unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
> - unsigned long pending_updates;
>
> - if (curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
> + if (jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
> return;
>
> raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
> - pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
> - if (pending_updates) {
> - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
> - /*
> - * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be
> - * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort.
> - */
> - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates);
> - }
> + /*
> + * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be
> + * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort.
> + */
> + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0);
> raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ */
> @@ -568,11 +560,7 @@ void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
> */
> void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq)
> {
> - /*
> - * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz().
> - */
> - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
> - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->load.weight, 1);
> + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->load.weight);
>
> calc_load_account_active(this_rq);
> }
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-20 21:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-20 20:45 [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched: Disabled LB_BIAS with full dynticks Frederic Weisbecker
2013-06-20 20:45 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] sched: Disable lb_bias feature for " Frederic Weisbecker
2013-06-20 21:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-06-20 20:45 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] sched: Consolidate nohz cpu load prelude code Frederic Weisbecker
2013-06-20 21:01 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2013-06-20 20:45 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] sched: Conditionally build decaying cpu load stats Frederic Weisbecker
2013-06-20 20:45 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched: Consolidate open coded preemptible() checks Frederic Weisbecker
2013-06-26 13:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-07-01 11:20 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2013-07-01 11:55 ` 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=20130620210107.GM4082@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.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