From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>,
Suruchi Kadu <suruchi.a.kadu@intel.com>,
Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Repost sched-rt: Reduce rq lock contention by eliminating locking of non-feasible target
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:48:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1421948918.2399.42.camel@schen9-desk2.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1421430374.2399.27.camel@schen9-desk2.jf.intel.com>
On Fri, 2015-01-16 at 09:46 -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 20:58 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> >
> > Please add a comment here that says something like:
> >
> > /*
> > * Don't bother moving it if the destination CPU is
> > * not running a lower priority task.
> > */
> >
> Okay. Updated in patch below.
>
> > > - if (target != -1)
> > > + if (target != -1 &&
> > > + p->prio < cpu_rq(target)->rt.highest_prio.curr)
> > > cpu = target;
> > > }
> > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > @@ -1613,6 +1614,12 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct
> > > task_struct *task, struct rq *rq) break;
> > >
> > > lowest_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > > +
> > > + if (lowest_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr <= task->prio) {
> > > + /* target rq has tasks of equal or higher priority,
> > > try again */
> > > + lowest_rq = NULL;
> > > + continue;
> >
> > This should just break out and not try again. The reason for the other
> > try again is because of the double_lock which can release the locks
> > which can cause a process waiting for the lock to sneak in and
> > change the priorities. But this case, a try again is highly unlikely to
> > do anything differently (no locks are released) and just waste cycles.
>
> Agree. Updated in updated patch below.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Tim
>
Steven and Peter, are you okay with the updated patch?
Thanks.
Tim
> ---->8------
>
> From 5f676f7a351e85eb5cc64f1971dd03eca43b5271 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:38:12 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] sched-rt: Reduce rq lock contention by eliminating
> locking of
> non-feasible target
> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
> Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>, Steven Rostedt
> <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Suruchi Kadu <suruchi.a.kadu@intel.com>, Doug
> Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>
> This patch added checks that prevent futile attempts to move rt tasks
> to cpu with active tasks of equal or higher priority. This reduces
> run queue lock contention and improves the performance of a well
> known OLTP benchmark by 0.7%.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index ee15f5a..46ebcb1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1337,7 +1337,12 @@ select_task_rq_rt(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int sd_flag, int flags)
> curr->prio <= p->prio)) {
> int target = find_lowest_rq(p);
>
> - if (target != -1)
> + /*
> + * Don't bother moving it if the destination CPU is
> + * not running a lower priority task.
> + */
> + if (target != -1 &&
> + p->prio < cpu_rq(target)->rt.highest_prio.curr)
> cpu = target;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -1614,6 +1619,16 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
>
> lowest_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>
> + if (lowest_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr <= task->prio) {
> + /*
> + * Target rq has tasks of equal or higher priority,
> + * retrying does not release any lock and is unlikely
> + * to yield a different result.
> + */
> + lowest_rq = NULL;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> /* if the prio of this runqueue changed, try again */
> if (double_lock_balance(rq, lowest_rq)) {
> /*
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-22 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-06 19:01 [PATCH] Repost sched-rt: Reduce rq lock contention by eliminating locking of non-feasible target Tim Chen
2015-01-06 19:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-01-15 17:13 ` Tim Chen
2015-01-16 1:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-01-16 17:46 ` Tim Chen
2015-01-22 17:48 ` Tim Chen [this message]
2015-02-01 17:52 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/rt: " tip-bot for Tim Chen
2015-02-24 16:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2015-03-03 21:12 ` Ben Hutchings
2015-04-09 1:17 ` Zefan Li
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=1421948918.2399.42.camel@schen9-desk2.jf.intel.com \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=doug.nelson@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com \
--cc=suruchi.a.kadu@intel.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).