From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peter@programming.kicks-ass.net>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Make yield_task_fair more efficient
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:21:33 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47BD1F75.5030506@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080221060427.GA9159@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> __pick_last_entity() walks the entire tree on O(lgn) time to find the
>> rightmost entry. This patch makes the routine more efficient by
>> reducing the cost of the lookup
>
> hm, i'm not sure we want to do this: we'd be slowing down the fastpath
> of all the other common scheduler functions, for the sake of a rarely
> used (and broken ...) API: yield. And note that an rbtree walk is not
> slow at all - if you are yielding frequently it's probably all cached.
>
> Ingo
Ingo,
I disagree. The cost is only adding a field to cfs_rq and we already have the
logic to track the leftmost node, we just update the rightmost node as well.
For a large number of tasks - say 10000, we need to walk 14 levels before we
reach the node (each time). Doesn't matter if the data is cached, we are still
spending CPU time looking through pointers and walking to the right node. If all
the threads get a chance to run, you can imagine the effect it has on efficiency
and the data cache.
I see a boost in sched_yield performance and no big hit on regular performance.
Could you please test it to see if your apprehensions are correct.
PS: You missed to add me on the cc/to list.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-21 6:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-21 5:33 Make yield_task_fair more efficient Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 6:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-21 6:51 ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2008-02-21 7:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-21 7:39 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-21 8:50 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 9:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-21 9:31 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 9:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-02-21 9:44 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 9:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-21 9:42 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-21 10:07 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 11:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-21 11:27 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 20:38 ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-21 20:55 ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-22 3:27 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 10:17 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 12:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-21 12:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2008-02-21 13:29 ` Balbir Singh
2008-02-21 14:38 ` Jörn Engel
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=47BD1F75.5030506@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peter@programming.kicks-ass.net \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.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