linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tkhai Kirill <tkhai@yandex.ru>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]sched_rt.c: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt()
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:09:44 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <324931324415384@web36.yandex.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <203221324412916@web157.yandex.ru>

Again, right patch

21.12.2011, 00:28, "Tkhai Kirill" <tkhai@yandex.ru>:
> 20.12.2011, 21:44, "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@redhat.com>:
>
>>  On 12/02, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>>>   Migration status depends on a difference of weight from 0 and 1. If
>>>   weight > 1 (<= 1) and old weight <= 1 (> 1) then task becomes pushable
>>>   (not pushable). We are not insterested in exact values of it, is it 3 or
>>>   4, for example.
>>>
>>>   Now if we are changing affinity from a set of 3 cpus to a set of 4, the
>>>   task will be dequeued and enqueued sequentially without important
>>>   difference in comparison with initial state. The only difference is in
>>>   internal representation of plist queue of pushable tasks and the fact
>>>   that the task may won't be the first in a sequence of the same priority
>>>   tasks. But it seems to me it gives nothing.
>>  Looks reasonable, although I can't say I really understand this code.
>>  Add Gregory.
>>>   Signed-off-by: Tkhai Kirill <tkhai@yandex.ru>
>>>
>>>   --- kernel/sched_rt.c.orig 2011-12-02 00:29:11.970243145 +0400
>>>   +++ kernel/sched_rt.c 2011-12-02 00:37:43.622846606 +0400
>>  please use -p1
>
> Sorry, this time I'm sending "git diffed" output.
>
>>>   @@ -1572,43 +1572,37 @@ static void set_cpus_allowed_rt(struct t
>>>                                    const struct cpumask *new_mask)
>>>    {
>>>            int weight = cpumask_weight(new_mask);
>>>   + struct rq *rq;
>>>
>>>            BUG_ON(!rt_task(p));
>>>
>>>            /*
>>>   - * Update the migration status of the RQ if we have an RT task
>>>   - * which is running AND changing its weight value.
>>>   + * Just exit if it's not necessary to change migration status
>>>             */
>>>   - if (p->on_rq && (weight != p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed)) {
>>>   - struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
>>>   + if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed <= 1 && weight <= 1)
>>>   + || (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1 && weight > 1))
>>>   + return;
>>  Subjective, but may be
>>
>>          if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1) != (weight > 1))
>>                  return;
>>
>>  looks more understandable?
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 3640ebb..4467f4d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1774,43 +1774,36 @@ static void set_cpus_allowed_rt(struct task_struct *p,
>                                  const struct cpumask *new_mask)
>  {
>          int weight = cpumask_weight(new_mask);
> + struct rq *rq;
>
>          BUG_ON(!rt_task(p));
>
>          /*
> - * Update the migration status of the RQ if we have an RT task
> - * which is running AND changing its weight value.
> + * Just exit if it's not necessary to change migration status
>           */
> - if (p->on_rq && (weight != p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed)) {
> - struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
> -
> - if (!task_current(rq, p)) {
> - /*
> - * Make sure we dequeue this task from the pushable list
> - * before going further.  It will either remain off of
> - * the list because we are no longer pushable, or it
> - * will be requeued.
> - */
> - if (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
> - dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> -
> - /*
> - * Requeue if our weight is changing and still > 1
> - */
> - if (weight > 1)
> - enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> + if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1) != (weight > 1))
> + return;
>
> - }
> + if (!p->on_rq)
> + return;
>
> - if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed <= 1) && (weight > 1)) {
> - rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory++;
> - } else if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1) && (weight <= 1)) {
> - BUG_ON(!rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory);
> - rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory--;
> - }
> + rq = task_rq(p);
>
> - update_rt_migration(&rq->rt);
> + /*
> + * Several cpus were allowed but now it's not so OR vice versa
> + */
> + if (weight <= 1) {
> + if (!task_current(rq, p))
> + dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> + BUG_ON(!rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory);
> + rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory--;
> + } else {
> + if (!task_current(rq, p))
> + enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> + rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory++;
>          }
> +
> + update_rt_migration(&rq->rt);
>  }
>
>  /* Assumes rq->lock is held */

---

diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 3640ebb..bf48343 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -1774,43 +1774,36 @@ static void set_cpus_allowed_rt(struct task_struct *p,
 				const struct cpumask *new_mask)
 {
 	int weight = cpumask_weight(new_mask);
+	struct rq *rq;
 
 	BUG_ON(!rt_task(p));
 
 	/*
-	 * Update the migration status of the RQ if we have an RT task
-	 * which is running AND changing its weight value.
+	 * Just exit if it's not necessary to change migration status
 	 */
-	if (p->on_rq && (weight != p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed)) {
-		struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
-
-		if (!task_current(rq, p)) {
-			/*
-			 * Make sure we dequeue this task from the pushable list
-			 * before going further.  It will either remain off of
-			 * the list because we are no longer pushable, or it
-			 * will be requeued.
-			 */
-			if (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
-				dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);
-
-			/*
-			 * Requeue if our weight is changing and still > 1
-			 */
-			if (weight > 1)
-				enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
+	if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1) == (weight > 1))
+		return;
 
-		}
+	if (!p->on_rq)
+		return;
 
-		if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed <= 1) && (weight > 1)) {
-			rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory++;
-		} else if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1) && (weight <= 1)) {
-			BUG_ON(!rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory);
-			rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory--;
-		}
+	rq = task_rq(p);
 
-		update_rt_migration(&rq->rt);
+	/*
+	 * Several cpus were allowed but now it's not so OR vice versa
+	 */
+	if (weight <= 1) {
+		if (!task_current(rq, p))
+			dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);
+		BUG_ON(!rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory);
+		rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory--;
+	} else {
+		if (!task_current(rq, p))
+			enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
+		rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory++;
 	}
+
+	update_rt_migration(&rq->rt);
 }
 
 /* Assumes rq->lock is held */

  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-20 21:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-01 21:26 [PATCH]sched_rt.c: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt() Kirill Tkhai
2011-12-20 17:44 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-12-20 20:28   ` Tkhai Kirill
2011-12-20 21:09     ` Tkhai Kirill [this message]
2012-02-13 17:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-02-19 14:17   ` Kirill Tkhai
2012-03-16 23:58     ` Kirill Tkhai
2012-04-10 13:58       ` Steven Rostedt
2012-04-10 15:52     ` Steven Rostedt
2012-04-11  5:06       ` Kirill Tkhai
2012-04-14 18:22         ` [tip:sched/core] sched_rt: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt () tip-bot for Kirill Tkhai
2012-01-11 19:10 [PATCH] sched_rt.c: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt() Kirill Tkhai

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=324931324415384@web36.yandex.ru \
    --to=tkhai@yandex.ru \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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).