linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@cs.pitt.edu>,
	Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 RFC 1/2] sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and target runqueue has one task
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:10:44 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50CB487C.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121214002944.GB17513@amt.cnet>

Hi Ingo,

Could you please take this into x86 tree?

Thanks,
On 12/14/2012 05:59 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Raghavendra,
>
> Please get this integrate through x86 tree (Ingo CC'ed).
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>
>> In case of undercomitted scenarios, especially in large guests
>> yield_to overhead is significantly high. when run queue length of
>> source and target is one, take an opportunity to bail out and return
>> -ESRCH. This return condition can be further exploited to quickly come
>> out of PLE handler.
>>
>> (History: Raghavendra initially worked on break out of kvm ple handler upon
>>   seeing source runqueue length = 1, but it had to export rq length).
>>   Peter came up with the elegant idea of return -ESRCH in scheduler core.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Raghavendra, Checking the rq length of target vcpu condition added.(thanks Avi)
>> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>>   kernel/sched/core.c |   25 +++++++++++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 2d8927f..fc219a5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -4289,7 +4289,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
>>    * It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
>>    * can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
>>    *
>> - * Returns true if we indeed boosted the target task.
>> + * Returns:
>> + *	true (>0) if we indeed boosted the target task.
>> + *	false (0) if we failed to boost the target.
>> + *	-ESRCH if there's no task to yield to.
>>    */
>>   bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
>>   {
>> @@ -4303,6 +4306,15 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
>>
>>   again:
>>   	p_rq = task_rq(p);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If we're the only runnable task on the rq and target rq also
>> +	 * has only one task, there's absolutely no point in yielding.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (rq->nr_running == 1 && p_rq->nr_running == 1) {
>> +		yielded = -ESRCH;
>> +		goto out_irq;
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
>>   	while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
>>   		double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
>> @@ -4310,13 +4322,13 @@ again:
>>   	}
>>
>>   	if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
>> -		goto out;
>> +		goto out_unlock;
>>
>>   	if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
>> -		goto out;
>> +		goto out_unlock;
>>
>>   	if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
>> -		goto out;
>> +		goto out_unlock;
>>
>>   	yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
>>   	if (yielded) {
>> @@ -4329,11 +4341,12 @@ again:
>>   			resched_task(p_rq->curr);
>>   	}
>>
>> -out:
>> +out_unlock:
>>   	double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
>> +out_irq:
>>   	local_irq_restore(flags);
>>
>> -	if (yielded)
>> +	if (yielded > 0)
>>   		schedule();
>>
>>   	return yielded;
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>


  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-14 15:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-26 12:07 [PATCH V3 RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit scenarios Raghavendra K T
2012-11-26 12:07 ` [PATCH V3 RFC 1/2] sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and target runqueue has one task Raghavendra K T
2012-11-26 13:35   ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-27 10:30     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-27 14:04       ` Andrew Theurer
2012-11-28  7:03         ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-27 14:23       ` Chegu Vinod
     [not found]         ` <50B68F94.3080907@hp.com>
2012-11-29  2:00           ` Andrew Theurer
     [not found]         ` <50B6B5B5.5060108@hp.com>
2012-11-29  2:20           ` Chegu Vinod
2012-12-14  0:29   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-12-14 15:40     ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2012-12-19  5:35       ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-26 12:08 ` [PATCH V3 RFC 2/2] kvm: Handle yield_to failure return code for potential undercommit case Raghavendra K T
2012-11-26 13:43   ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-26 14:06     ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-27 10:27     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-27 13:22       ` Andrew Jones
2012-11-28  1:12   ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-28  5:10     ` Raghavendra K T
2012-11-29 12:16       ` Gleb Natapov
2012-11-30  5:04         ` Raghavendra K T
2012-12-03 19:56       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-12-04 17:49         ` Raghavendra K T
2012-12-06  6:59         ` Raghavendra K T
2012-12-08  0:49           ` Marcelo Tosatti
2012-11-29  2:07 ` [PATCH V3 RFC 0/2] kvm: Improving undercommit scenarios Chegu Vinod
2012-11-29  9:49   ` Raghavendra K T

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=50CB487C.5000209@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
    --cc=drjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=gleb@redhat.com \
    --cc=habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
    --cc=nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=ouyang@cs.pitt.edu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=srivatsa.vaddagiri@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).