linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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;
 		}
 	}
 

  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).