From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Chen,
Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
"'Chris Mason'" <mason@suse.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 18:28:40 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <447FF6B8.1000700@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200606021817.46745.kernel@kolivas.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]
Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 02 June 2006 17:53, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>This is a small micro-optimisation / cleanup we can do after
>>smtnice gets converted to use trylocks. Might result in a little
>>less cacheline footprint in some cases.
>
>
> It's only dependent_sleeper that is being converted in these patches. The
> wake_sleeping_dependent component still locks all runqueues and needs to
Oh I missed that.
> succeed in order to ensure a task doesn't keep sleeping indefinitely. That
Let's make it use trylocks as well. wake_priority_sleeper should ensure
things don't sleep forever I think? We should be optimising for the most
common case, and in many workloads, the runqueue does go idle frequently.
> one doesn't get called from schedule() so is far less expensive. This means I
> don't think we can change that cpu based locking order which I believe was
> introduce to prevent a deadlock (?DaveJ disovered it iirc).
>
AntonB, I think.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
[-- Attachment #2: sntnice2.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1843 bytes --]
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-06-02 18:23:18.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c 2006-06-02 18:26:40.000000000 +1000
@@ -2686,6 +2686,9 @@ static inline void wakeup_busy_runqueue(
resched_task(rq->idle);
}
+/*
+ * Called with interrupts disabled and this_rq's runqueue locked.
+ */
static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
{
struct sched_domain *tmp, *sd = NULL;
@@ -2699,22 +2702,13 @@ static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int
if (!sd)
return;
- /*
- * Unlock the current runqueue because we have to lock in
- * CPU order to avoid deadlocks. Caller knows that we might
- * unlock. We keep IRQs disabled.
- */
- spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
-
sibling_map = sd->span;
-
- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
- spin_lock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
- /*
- * We clear this CPU from the mask. This both simplifies the
- * inner loop and keps this_rq locked when we exit:
- */
cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map);
+ for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) {
+ if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock)))
+ cpu_clear(i, sibling_map);
+ }
+
for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) {
runqueue_t *smt_rq = cpu_rq(i);
@@ -2724,10 +2718,6 @@ static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int
for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
spin_unlock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
- /*
- * We exit with this_cpu's rq still held and IRQs
- * still disabled:
- */
}
/*
@@ -2961,13 +2951,6 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
next = rq->idle;
rq->expired_timestamp = 0;
wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu, rq);
- /*
- * wake_sleeping_dependent() might have released
- * the runqueue, so break out if we got new
- * tasks meanwhile:
- */
- if (!rq->nr_running)
- goto switch_tasks;
}
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-02 8:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-01 22:55 [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention Chris Mason
2006-06-01 23:57 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 1:59 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 2:28 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 3:55 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 4:18 ` Nick Piggin
2006-06-02 6:08 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 7:53 ` Nick Piggin
2006-06-02 8:17 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 8:28 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-06-02 8:34 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:56 ` Nick Piggin
2006-06-02 9:17 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 9:25 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 9:31 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 9:34 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 9:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 10:12 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 20:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 22:15 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 22:19 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 22:31 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 22:58 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-03 0:02 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-03 0:08 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-03 0:27 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 9:36 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 10:30 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 13:16 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 21:54 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 22:04 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 22:14 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 10:19 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 20:59 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:38 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:24 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:31 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 8:50 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 2:35 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-06-02 3:04 ` Con Kolivas
2006-06-02 3:23 ` Con Kolivas
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=447FF6B8.1000700@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mason@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).