From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@yandex.ru>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org,
pjt@google.com, oleg@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com,
mingo@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched: Teach scheduler to understand ONRQ_MIGRATING state
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:38:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140729123825.GB3935@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1406627582.3600.9.camel@tkhai>
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 01:53:02PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
>
> sched: Teach scheduler to understand ONRQ_MIGRATING state
>
> This is new on_rq state for the cases when task is migrating
> from one src_rq to another dst_rq, and there is no necessity
> to have both RQs locked at the same time.
>
> We will use the state this way:
>
> raw_spin_lock(&src_rq->lock);
> dequeue_task(src_rq, p, 0);
> p->on_rq = ONRQ_MIGRATING;
> set_task_cpu(p, dst_cpu);
> raw_spin_unlock(&src_rq->lock);
>
> raw_spin_lock(&dst_rq->lock);
> p->on_rq = ONRQ_QUEUED;
> enqueue_task(dst_rq, p, 0);
> raw_spin_unlock(&dst_rq->lock);
>
> The profit is that double_rq_lock() is not needed now,
> and this may reduce the latencies in some situations.
You forgot to explain how the spinning on task_migrated() is bounded and
thus doesn't make your beginning and end contradict itself.
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 26aa7bc..00d7bcc 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -333,7 +333,8 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p)
> for (;;) {
> rq = task_rq(p);
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> - if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
> + if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) &&
> + !task_migrating(p)))
> return rq;
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> }
I would prefer an extra spin-loop like so, that avoids us spinning on
the rq-lock, which serves no purpose.
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 2676866b4394..1e65a0bdbbc3 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -331,9 +331,12 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p)
lockdep_assert_held(&p->pi_lock);
for (;;) {
+ while (task_migrating(p))
+ cpu_relax();
+
rq = task_rq(p);
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
- if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
+ if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) && !task_migrating(p)))
return rq;
raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
}
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index e5a9b6d..f6773d7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ struct rq;
>
> /* .on_rq states of struct task_struct: */
The 'normal' way to write that is: task_struct::on_rq
> #define ONRQ_QUEUED 1
> +#define ONRQ_MIGRATING 2
>
> extern __read_mostly int scheduler_running;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-29 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-26 14:58 [PATCH v2 0/5] sched: Add on_rq states and remove several double rq locks Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-26 14:59 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] sched: Wrapper for checking task_struct's .on_rq Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-26 14:59 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] sched: Teach scheduler to understand ONRQ_MIGRATING state Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-28 8:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-28 9:05 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-29 9:53 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-29 12:38 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-07-29 16:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-30 8:04 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-30 14:41 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-30 21:25 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-26 14:59 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] sched: Remove double_rq_lock() from __migrate_task() Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-26 14:59 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] sched/fair: Remove double_lock_balance() from active_load_balance_cpu_stop() Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-26 14:59 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] sched/fair: Remove double_lock_balance() from load_balance() Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-29 12:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-26 19:39 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] sched: Add on_rq states and remove several double rq locks Oleg Nesterov
2014-07-27 21:26 ` Kirill Tkhai
2014-07-28 13:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20140729123825.GB3935@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ktkhai@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tkhai@yandex.ru \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@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