From: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
To: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com, dhaval.giani@oracle.com,
daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com,
matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com,
riel@redhat.com, jbacik@fb.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
quentin.perret@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/10] sched: Provide sparsemask, a reduced contention bitmap
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:19:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181128011904.GR846@vader> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7a3e87ac-db63-27c5-8490-2330637e59b1@oracle.com>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:16:56AM -0500, Steven Sistare wrote:
> On 11/9/2018 7:50 AM, Steve Sistare wrote:
> > From: Steve Sistare <steve.sistare@oracle.com>
> >
> > Provide struct sparsemask and functions to manipulate it. A sparsemask is
> > a sparse bitmap. It reduces cache contention vs the usual bitmap when many
> > threads concurrently set, clear, and visit elements, by reducing the number
> > of significant bits per cacheline. For each 64 byte chunk of the mask,
> > only the first K bits of the first word are used, and the remaining bits
> > are ignored, where K is a creation time parameter. Thus a sparsemask that
> > can represent a set of N elements is approximately (N/K * 64) bytes in
> > size.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Sistare <steven.sistare@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/sparsemask.h | 260 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > lib/Makefile | 2 +-
> > lib/sparsemask.c | 142 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 403 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > create mode 100644 include/linux/sparsemask.h
> > create mode 100644 lib/sparsemask.c
>
> Hi Peter and Ingo,
> I need your opinion: would you prefer that I keep the new sparsemask type,
> or fold it into the existing sbitmap type? There is some overlap between the
> two, but mostly in trivial one line functions. The main differences are:
Adding Jens and myself.
> * sparsemask defines iterators that allow an inline loop body, like cpumask,
> whereas the sbitmap iterator forces us to define a callback function for
> the body, which is awkward.
>
> * sparsemask is slightly more efficient. The struct and variable length
> bitmap are allocated contiguously,
That just means you have the pointer indirection elsewhere :) The users
of sbitmap embed it in whatever structure they have.
> and sbitmap uses an extra field "depth"
> per bitmap cacheline.
The depth field is memory which would otherwise be unused, and it's only
used for sbitmap_get(), so it doesn't have any cost if you're using it
like a cpumask.
> * The order of arguments is different for the sparsemask accessors and
> sbitmap accessors. sparsemask mimics cpumask which is used extensively
> in the sched code.
>
> * Much of the sbitmap code supports queueing, sleeping, and waking on bit
> allocation, which is N/A for scheduler load load balancing. However, we
> can call the basic functions which do not use queueing.
>
> I could add the sparsemask iterators to sbitmap (90 lines), and define
> a thin layer to change the argument order to mimic cpumask, but that
> essentially recreates sparsemask.
We only use sbitmap_for_each_set() in a few places. Maybe a for_each()
style macro would be cleaner for those users, too, in which case I
wouldn't be opposed to changing it. The cpumask argument order thing is
a annoying, though.
> Also, pushing sparsemask into sbitmap would limit our freedom to evolve the
> type to meet the future needs of sched, as sbitmap has its own maintainer,
> and is used by drivers, so changes to its API and ABI will be frowned upon.
It's a generic data structure, so of course Jens and I have no problem
with changing it to meet more needs :) Personally, I'd prefer to only
have one datastructure for this, but I suppose it depends on whether
Peter and Ingo think the argument order is important enough.
> FWIW, here is the amount of code involved:
>
> include/linux/sbitmap.h
> 250 lines basic operations
> 284 lines for queueing
> ---
> 534 lines total
>
> lib/sbitmap.c
> 201 lines basic operations
> 380 lines for queueing
> ---
> 581 lines total
>
> include/linux/sparsemask.h
> 260 lines total
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/9/1176
>
> lib/sparsemask.c
> 142 lines total
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/11/9/1176
>
> - Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-28 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-09 12:50 [PATCH v3 00/10] steal tasks to improve CPU utilization Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 01/10] sched: Provide sparsemask, a reduced contention bitmap Steve Sistare
2018-11-27 15:16 ` Steven Sistare
2018-11-28 1:19 ` Omar Sandoval [this message]
2018-12-06 16:07 ` Steven Sistare
2018-12-06 18:19 ` Omar Sandoval
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 02/10] sched/topology: Provide hooks to allocate data shared per LLC Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 03/10] sched/topology: Provide cfs_overload_cpus bitmap Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 17:38 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-19 17:32 ` Steven Sistare
2018-11-20 12:52 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-12 16:42 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-19 17:33 ` Steven Sistare
2018-11-20 12:42 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-26 19:06 ` Steven Sistare
2018-12-03 16:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-12-06 16:40 ` Steven Sistare
2018-12-06 17:28 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: Dynamically update cfs_overload_cpus Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 05/10] sched/fair: Hoist idle_stamp up from idle_balance Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 19:07 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-19 17:31 ` Steven Sistare
2018-11-20 10:24 ` Valentin Schneider
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 06/10] sched/fair: Generalize the detach_task interface Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 07/10] sched/fair: Provide can_migrate_task_llc Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 08/10] sched/fair: Steal work from an overloaded CPU when CPU goes idle Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 09/10] sched/fair: disable stealing if too many NUMA nodes Steve Sistare
2018-11-09 12:50 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] sched/fair: Provide idle search schedstats Steve Sistare
2018-11-10 17:08 ` kbuild test robot
2018-11-09 15:02 ` hackbench run scripts Steven Sistare
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=20181128011904.GR846@vader \
--to=osandov@osandov.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \
--cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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).