From: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]O18.1int
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:23:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3ZVFAMJ08VU5ZOUPLICZU53ON641.3f4df451@monpc> (raw)
Hi Con (and linux-kernel),
I noticed a regression wrt 2.6.0-test4 and 2.4.22 with this
big context-switcher:
#include <unistd.h>
#define COUNT (1024 * 1024)
int main(void)
{
char buffer = 0;
int fd[2], i;
pipe(fd);
if (fork()) {
for (i = 0; i < COUNT; i++)
write(fd[1], &buffer, 1);
} else {
for (i = 0; i < COUNT; i++)
read(fd[0], &buffer, 1);
}
return 0;
}
Here are the timing results on my Pentium3 450:
Nothing else is running, no X.
vmstat(1) shows 200000 context-switchs per second.
2.4.22:
User time (seconds): 0.42
System time (seconds): 1.04
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:02.89
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 15
2.6.0-test4:
User time (seconds): 0.45
System time (seconds): 1.70
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:04.30
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 17
2.6.0-test4-nobonus:
User time (seconds): 0.42
System time (seconds): 1.26
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:03.24
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 17
2.6.0-test4-O18.1:
User time (seconds): 0.49
System time (seconds): 2.67
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:06.24
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 17
2.6.0-test4-O18.1-nobonus:
User time (seconds): 0.40
System time (seconds): 1.22
Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 0:03.18
Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 17
With -nobonus I mean this dumb patch that keeps the scheduling
overhead but not the computed bonus:
--- linux-2.6.0-test4-ck/kernel/sched.c.old
+++ linux-2.6.0-test4-ck/kernel/sched.c
@@ -349,6 +349,9 @@ static int effective_prio(task_t *p)
bonus = CURRENT_BONUS(p) - MAX_BONUS / 2;
+ if (p->pid > 100)
+ bonus = 0;
+
prio = p->static_prio - bonus;
if (prio < MAX_RT_PRIO)
prio = MAX_RT_PRIO;
And the top(1) results are:
2.6.0-test4:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
586 g 23 0 1336 260 1308 R 51.2 0.1 0:02.85 a.out (writer)
587 g 25 0 1336 260 1308 R 47.3 0.1 0:02.74 a.out (reader)
2.6.0-test4-ck:
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
717 g 16 0 1336 260 1308 S 50.6 0.1 0:02.49 a.out (writer)
718 g 25 0 1336 260 1308 R 49.6 0.1 0:02.51 a.out (reader)
My conclusion is that the regression is not because of an increased
overhead but because of wrong scheduling decisions in this case.
It runs at full speed when the reader and writer are at the same
priority.
Maybe this is also the case in the volano benchmark?
Anyway, we could reduce the overhead in schedule() by doing the sched_clock()
stuff only in the (prev != next) case.
BTW I am also interested in the patch below that prevents C-Z'ed processes
from gaining interactivity bonus.
--- linux-2.6.0-test4-ck/kernel/sched.c.old
+++ linux-2.6.0-test4-ck/kernel/sched.c
@@ -449,8 +449,10 @@ static void recalc_task_prio(task_t *p,
static inline void activate_task(task_t *p, runqueue_t *rq)
{
unsigned long long now = sched_clock();
+ int sleeping = p->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
- recalc_task_prio(p, now);
+ if (likely(sleeping))
+ recalc_task_prio(p, now);
/*
* This checks to make sure it's not an uninterruptible task
Thanks for reading.
Guillaume
next reply other threads:[~2003-08-28 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-28 12:23 Guillaume Chazarain [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-28 13:43 [PATCH]O18.1int Guillaume Chazarain
2003-08-28 13:58 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Nick Piggin
2003-08-23 22:03 [PATCH]O18.1int Voluspa
2003-08-24 4:04 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-23 5:55 [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-23 9:08 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Thomas Schlichter
2003-08-23 9:18 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Nick Piggin
2003-08-23 12:22 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-23 12:21 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-23 9:32 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Andrew Morton
2003-08-23 9:49 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Nick Piggin
2003-08-23 16:58 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-23 21:49 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Andrew Morton
2003-08-24 2:46 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-23 13:29 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-25 9:24 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Måns Rullgård
2003-08-25 9:42 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Alex Riesen
2003-08-25 10:16 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-25 10:21 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Alex Riesen
2003-08-25 21:02 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Alex Riesen
2003-08-25 22:48 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-25 23:00 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Alex Riesen
2003-08-26 22:03 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Alex Riesen
2003-08-25 10:34 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Måns Rullgård
2003-08-25 10:50 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-25 11:15 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Måns Rullgård
2003-08-25 11:37 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-25 11:58 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Måns Rullgård
2003-08-25 12:28 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-25 12:49 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Måns Rullgård
2003-08-25 13:32 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
2003-08-25 10:17 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Måns Rullgård
2003-08-25 10:34 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Alex Riesen
2003-08-25 11:23 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Måns Rullgård
2003-08-25 10:48 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Con Kolivas
[not found] ` <3F49E482.7030902@cyberone.com.au>
[not found] ` <20030825102933.GA14552@Synopsys.COM>
2003-08-26 22:20 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Alex Riesen
2003-08-27 2:26 ` [PATCH]O18.1int Nick Piggin
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=3ZVFAMJ08VU5ZOUPLICZU53ON641.3f4df451@monpc \
--to=guichaz@yahoo.fr \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).