From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: dave@sr71.net
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] sched: might_sleep(): do rate-limiting before sanity checks
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:03:54 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150625000354.255E7263@viggo.jf.intel.com> (raw)
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
I have a dumb microbenchmark. It loops doing single-byte writes
to a file. I have a few other patches to work on some things in
the filesystem write path. But after those are applied, the
4th-hottest kernel function is ___might_sleep() which seems a bit
silly.
I narrowed the overhead down to the pushf/pop in native_save_fl()
underneath the irqs_disabled() call. Those instructions must
serialize something in the CPU because they seem to be way slower
than they should be.
In any case, we ratelimit might_sleep() checks anyway. But, we
do the ratelimiting *after* we check the other conditions for
might_sleep() including the (costly) irqs_disabled() call.
If we flip these around and ratelimit _before_ the other checks,
I see a boost in the microbenchmark.
The downside here is that we end up doing more frequent updates
to the global 'prev_jiffy'. But, we're still only actually
updating it once per jiffy. I tested this on an 80-core system
and my test scales better with this patch applied than without
it, which made me feel a bit better that the global updates to
'prev_jiffy' won't be that painful in practice.
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
---
b/kernel/sched/core.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff -puN kernel/sched/core.c~might-sleep-ratelimit-first kernel/sched/core.c
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c~might-sleep-ratelimit-first 2015-06-24 16:57:24.643850450 -0700
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c 2015-06-24 16:57:24.650850764 -0700
@@ -7330,13 +7330,14 @@ void ___might_sleep(const char *file, in
static unsigned long prev_jiffy; /* ratelimiting */
rcu_sleep_check(); /* WARN_ON_ONCE() by default, no rate limit reqd. */
+ if (time_before(jiffies, prev_jiffy + HZ) && prev_jiffy)
+ return;
+ prev_jiffy = jiffies;
+
if ((preempt_count_equals(preempt_offset) && !irqs_disabled() &&
!is_idle_task(current)) ||
system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING || oops_in_progress)
return;
- if (time_before(jiffies, prev_jiffy + HZ) && prev_jiffy)
- return;
- prev_jiffy = jiffies;
printk(KERN_ERR
"BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at %s:%d\n",
_
next reply other threads:[~2015-06-25 0:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-25 0:03 Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-06-25 3:36 ` [RFC][PATCH] sched: might_sleep(): do rate-limiting before sanity checks Dave Hansen
2015-06-25 7:43 ` 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=20150625000354.255E7263@viggo.jf.intel.com \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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