All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	mingo@elte.hu, srostedt@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, gregory.haskins@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] sched: make double-lock-balance fair
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:56:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080827105615.GB5818@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1219833668.6462.72.camel@twins>

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:41:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 12:26 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:21:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > I suppose one could then write it like:
> > > 
> > >   if (spin_is_contended(&this_rq->lock) || !spin_trylock(&busiest->lock)) {
> > >     spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
> > >     double_rq_lock(this_rq, busiest);
> > >   }
> > > 
> > > But, I'm not sure that's worth the effort at that point..
> > 
> > Yeah, that could work, but hmm it might cause 2 cache coherency transactions
> > anyway even in the fastpath, so it might even be slower than just unlocking
> > unconditionally and taking both locks :(
> 
> right,..
 

Although I guess we could prefetch it... But OTOH I don't know exactly
what Intel CPUs do with prefetch -- I don't think they have a prefetchw.

I would support your idea if it is faster, of course ;)


> > > Anyway - I think all this is utterly defeated on CONFIG_PREEMPT by the
> > > spin with IRQs enabled logic in kernel/spinlock.c.
> > > 
> > > Making this an -rt only patch...
> > 
> > Hmm, and also on x86 with ticket locks we don't spin with preempt or
> > interrupts enabled any more (although we still do of course on other
> > architectures)
> 
> Aah, we don't do CONFIG_GENERIC_LOCKBREAK anymore?
 
Right. My reasoning said that if our critical sections are short enough,
*and not subject to starvation*, then we should not really need it, and
at any rate often it is just luck if it helps because in other cases
we might be taking the lock under an irq save region so it wouldn't help
there...


> Does it make sense to make this _double_lock_balance() thing depend on
> that too?

Hmm, you might have a good point there. Greg?

BTW. I wonder about other architectures that are of interest to -rt? Like
mips or arm perhaps... Any plans to implement ticket locks on those, or
do they not tend to be used in SMP configurations on -rt yte?


  reply	other threads:[~2008-08-27 10:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-25 20:15 [PATCH 0/5] sched: misc rt fixes for tip/sched/devel Gregory Haskins
2008-08-25 20:15 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched: only try to push a task on wakeup if it is migratable Gregory Haskins
2008-08-25 20:15 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched: pull only one task during NEWIDLE balancing to limit critical section Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26  6:21   ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-26 11:36     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27  6:41       ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-27 11:50         ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27 11:57           ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-25 20:15 ` [PATCH 3/5] sched: make double-lock-balance fair Gregory Haskins
2008-08-25 20:15   ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26  6:14   ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-26 12:23     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27  6:36       ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-27 11:41         ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27 11:53           ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-27 12:10             ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-25 20:15 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched: add sched_class->needs_post_schedule() member Gregory Haskins
2008-08-25 20:15 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched: create "pushable_tasks" list to limit pushing to one attempt Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:34 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] Series short description Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:34   ` [PATCH v2 1/6] sched: only try to push a task on wakeup if it is migratable Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:34   ` [PATCH v2 2/6] sched: pull only one task during NEWIDLE balancing to limit critical section Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:34     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:35   ` [PATCH v2 3/6] sched: make double-lock-balance fair Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27  8:21     ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-27  8:25       ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-27 10:26       ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-27 10:41         ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-27 10:56           ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-08-27 10:57             ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-27 12:03               ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27 11:07             ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-27 11:17               ` Russell King
2008-08-27 12:00               ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-29 12:49               ` Ralf Baechle
2008-08-27 12:13             ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27 12:02       ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:35   ` [PATCH v2 4/6] sched: add sched_class->needs_post_schedule() member Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:35   ` [PATCH v2 5/6] plist: fix PLIST_NODE_INIT to work with debug enabled Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 17:35   ` [PATCH v2 6/6] sched: create "pushable_tasks" list to limit pushing to one attempt Gregory Haskins
2008-08-29 13:24     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-26 18:16   ` [PATCH v2 0/6] sched: misc rt fixes for tip/sched/devel (was: Series short description) Gregory Haskins
2008-08-27  8:33   ` [PATCH v2 0/6] Series short description Peter Zijlstra
2008-09-04 12:54 ` [TIP/SCHED/DEVEL PATCH v3 0/6] sched: misc rt fixes Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 12:55   ` [TIP/SCHED/DEVEL PATCH v3 1/6] sched: only try to push a task on wakeup if it is migratable Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 12:55   ` [TIP/SCHED/DEVEL PATCH v3 2/6] sched: pull only one task during NEWIDLE balancing to limit critical section Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 12:55     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 12:55   ` [TIP/SCHED/DEVEL PATCH v3 3/6] sched: make double-lock-balance fair Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 12:55   ` [TIP/SCHED/DEVEL PATCH v3 4/6] sched: add sched_class->needs_post_schedule() member Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 20:36     ` Steven Rostedt
2008-09-04 20:36       ` Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 12:55   ` [TIP/SCHED/DEVEL PATCH v3 5/6] plist: fix PLIST_NODE_INIT to work with debug enabled Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 12:55   ` [TIP/SCHED/DEVEL PATCH v3 6/6] sched: create "pushable_tasks" list to limit pushing to one attempt Gregory Haskins
2008-09-04 21:16     ` Steven Rostedt
2008-09-04 21:26       ` Gregory Haskins

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=20080827105615.GB5818@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=gregory.haskins@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=srostedt@redhat.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.