From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] sched/fair: Optimize cgroup pick_next_task_fair
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:37:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140130123710.GA2936@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAgR5xdr-Vj14t+RRVoLACrvTsHw_mXgimUDKsuNBUKJA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 01:18:09PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 28 January 2014 18:16, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > @@ -4662,9 +4682,86 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup(struct
> > static struct task_struct *
> > pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
> > {
> > - struct task_struct *p;
> > struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
> > struct sched_entity *se;
> > + struct task_struct *p;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> > + if (!cfs_rq->nr_running)
> > + return NULL;
>
> Couldn't you move the test above out of the CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> and remove the same test that is done after the simple label
No, we have to check it twice because..
>
> > +
> > + if (prev->sched_class != &fair_sched_class)
> > + goto simple;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Because of the set_next_buddy() in dequeue_task_fair() it is rather
> > + * likely that a next task is from the same cgroup as the current.
> > + *
> > + * Therefore attempt to avoid putting and setting the entire cgroup
> > + * hierarchy, only change the part that actually changes.
> > + */
> > +
> > + do {
> > + struct sched_entity *curr = cfs_rq->curr;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Since we got here without doing put_prev_entity() we also
> > + * have to consider cfs_rq->curr. If it is still a runnable
> > + * entity, update_curr() will update its vruntime, otherwise
> > + * forget we've ever seen it.
> > + */
> > + if (curr && curr->on_rq)
> > + update_curr(cfs_rq);
> > + else
> > + curr = NULL;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * This call to check_cfs_rq_runtime() will do the throttle and
> > + * dequeue its entity in the parent(s). Therefore the 'simple'
> > + * nr_running test will indeed be correct.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(check_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq)))
> > + goto simple;
... here if you read the comment above, we could have modified the
nr_running.
> > + se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, curr);
> > + cfs_rq = group_cfs_rq(se);
> > + } while (cfs_rq);
> > +
> > + p = task_of(se);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Since we haven't yet done put_prev_entity and if the selected task
> > + * is a different task than we started out with, try and touch the
> > + * least amount of cfs_rqs.
> > + */
> > + if (prev != p) {
> > + struct sched_entity *pse = &prev->se;
> > +
> > + while (!(cfs_rq = is_same_group(se, pse))) {
> > + int se_depth = se->depth;
> > + int pse_depth = pse->depth;
> > +
> > + if (se_depth <= pse_depth) {
> > + put_prev_entity(cfs_rq_of(pse), pse);
> > + pse = parent_entity(pse);
> > + }
> > + if (se_depth >= pse_depth) {
> > + set_next_entity(cfs_rq_of(se), se);
> > + se = parent_entity(se);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + put_prev_entity(cfs_rq, pse);
> > + set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (hrtick_enabled(rq))
> > + hrtick_start_fair(rq, p);
> > +
> > + return p;
> > +simple:
> > + cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
> > +#endif
> >
> > if (!cfs_rq->nr_running)
> > return NULL;
And therefore this test needs to stay.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-30 12:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-28 17:16 [PATCH 0/9] Various sched patches -v2 Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 1/9] sched: Remove cpu parameter for idle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 2/9] sched: Fix race in idle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 3/9] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 4/9] sched/fair: Track cgroup depth Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 5/9] sched: Push put_prev_task() into pick_next_task() Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 18:46 ` bsegall
2014-01-28 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 6/9] sched/fair: Clean up __clear_buddies_* Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 7/9] sched/fair: Optimize cgroup pick_next_task_fair Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-30 12:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-30 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-01-30 12:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 8/9] sched: Clean up idle task SMP logic Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-30 10:52 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 9/9] sched: Push down pre_schedule() and idle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-30 12:45 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-30 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 18:07 ` [PATCH 0/9] Various sched patches -v2 Steven Rostedt
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=20140130123710.GA2936@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bitbucket@online.de \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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