Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Optimize __calc_delta.

[Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4516 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:24 PM Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 6:34 PM 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built
> Linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 2:48 PM Josh Don <joshdon@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Clement Courbet <courbet@google.com>
> > >
> > > A significant portion of __calc_delta time is spent in the loop
> > > shifting a u64 by 32 bits. Use `fls` instead of iterating.
> > >
> > > This is ~7x faster on benchmarks.
> > >
> > > The generic `fls` implementation (`generic_fls`) is still ~4x faster
> > > than the loop.
> > > Architectures that have a better implementation will make use of it. For
> > > example, on X86 we get an additional factor 2 in speed without dedicated
> > > implementation.
> > >
> > > On gcc, the asm versions of `fls` are about the same speed as the
> > > builtin. On clang, the versions that use fls are more than twice as
> > > slow as the builtin. This is because the way the `fls` function is
> > > written, clang puts the value in memory:
> > > https://godbolt.org/z/EfMbYe. This bug is filed at
> > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49406.
> >
> > Hi Josh, Thanks for helping get this patch across the finish line.
> > Would you mind updating the commit message to point to
> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20197?
> >
> > >
> > > ```
> > > name                                   cpu/op
> > > BM_Calc<__calc_delta_loop>             9.57ms ±12%
> > > BM_Calc<__calc_delta_generic_fls>      2.36ms ±13%
> > > BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls>          2.45ms ±13%
> > > BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls_nomem>    1.66ms ±12%
> > > BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls64>        2.46ms ±13%
> > > BM_Calc<__calc_delta_asm_fls64_nomem>  1.34ms ±15%
> > > BM_Calc<__calc_delta_builtin>          1.32ms ±11%
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Clement Courbet <courbet@google.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Josh Don <joshdon@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/fair.c  | 19 +++++++++++--------
> > >  kernel/sched/sched.h |  1 +
> > >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > index 8a8bd7b13634..a691371960ae 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > > @@ -229,22 +229,25 @@ static void __update_inv_weight(struct load_weight *lw)
> > >  static u64 __calc_delta(u64 delta_exec, unsigned long weight, struct load_weight *lw)
> > >  {
> > >         u64 fact = scale_load_down(weight);
> > > +       u32 fact_hi = (u32)(fact >> 32);
> > >         int shift = WMULT_SHIFT;
> > > +       int fs;
> > >
> > >         __update_inv_weight(lw);
> > >
> > > -       if (unlikely(fact >> 32)) {
> > > -               while (fact >> 32) {
> > > -                       fact >>= 1;
> > > -                       shift--;
> > > -               }
> > > +       if (unlikely(fact_hi)) {
> > > +               fs = fls(fact_hi);
> > > +               shift -= fs;
> > > +               fact >>= fs;
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         fact = mul_u32_u32(fact, lw->inv_weight);
> > >
> > > -       while (fact >> 32) {
> > > -               fact >>= 1;
> > > -               shift--;
> > > +       fact_hi = (u32)(fact >> 32);
> > > +       if (fact_hi) {
> > > +               fs = fls(fact_hi);
> > > +               shift -= fs;
> > > +               fact >>= fs;
> > >         }
> > >
> > >         return mul_u64_u32_shr(delta_exec, fact, shift);
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > index 10a1522b1e30..714af71cf983 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
> > >  #include <uapi/linux/sched/types.h>
> > >
> > >  #include <linux/binfmts.h>
> > > +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> >
> > This hunk of the patch is curious.  I assume that bitops.h is needed
> > for fls(); if so, why not #include it in kernel/sched/fair.c?
> > Otherwise this potentially hurts compile time for all TUs that include
> > kernel/sched/sched.h.
> >
>
> I have v2 as-is in my custom patchset and booted right now on bare metal.
>
> As Nick points out moving the include makes sense to me.
> We have a lot of include at the wrong places increasing build-time.
>

I tried with the attached patch.

$ LC_ALL=C ll kernel/sched/fair.o
-rw-r--r-- 1 dileks dileks 1.2M Mar  4 20:11 kernel/sched/fair.o

- Sedat -

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-sched-fair-Move-include-after-__calc_delta-optimizat.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1114 bytes --]

From afd45cd78c21960c6e937021f095e5f8f51fef7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 20:05:30 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Move include after __calc_delta optimization
 change

Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c  | 2 ++
 kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 -
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 5fda1751fbd1..b9f10ae92e3f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
  *  Adaptive scheduling granularity, math enhancements by Peter Zijlstra
  *  Copyright (C) 2007 Red Hat, Inc., Peter Zijlstra
  */
+#include <linux/bitops.h>
+
 #include "sched.h"
 
 /*
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index 714af71cf983..10a1522b1e30 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -36,7 +36,6 @@
 #include <uapi/linux/sched/types.h>
 
 #include <linux/binfmts.h>
-#include <linux/bitops.h>
 #include <linux/blkdev.h>
 #include <linux/compat.h>
 #include <linux/context_tracking.h>
-- 
2.30.1