lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: bug in sched.c:task_hot()
Peter Williams wrote:
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
>
>> Current implementation of task_hot() has a performance bug in it
>> that it will cause integer underflow.
>>
>> Variable "now" (typically passed in as rq->timestamp_last_tick)
>> and p->timestamp are all defined as unsigned long long. However,
>> If former is smaller than the latter, integer under flow occurs
>> which make the result of subtraction a huge positive number. Then
>> it is compared to sd->cache_hot_time and it will wrongly identify
>> a cache hot task as cache cold.
>>
>> This bug causes large amount of incorrect process migration across
>> cpus (at stunning 10,000 per second) and we lost cache affinity very
>> quickly and almost took double digit performance regression on a db
>> transaction processing workload. Patch to fix the bug. Diff'ed against
>> 2.6.9-rc3.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
>>
>>
>> --- linux-2.6.9-rc3/kernel/sched.c.orig 2004-10-04
>> 19:11:21.000000000 -0700
>> +++ linux-2.6.9-rc3/kernel/sched.c 2004-10-04 19:19:27.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -180,7 +180,8 @@ static unsigned int task_timeslice(task_
>> else
>> return SCALE_PRIO(DEF_TIMESLICE, p->static_prio);
>> }
>> -#define task_hot(p, now, sd) ((now) - (p)->timestamp <
>> (sd)->cache_hot_time)
>> +#define task_hot(p, now, sd) ((long long) ((now) - (p)->timestamp) \
>> + < (long long) (sd)->cache_hot_time)
>>
>> enum idle_type
>> {
>
>
> The interesting question is: How does now get to be less than timestamp?
> This probably means that timestamp_last_tick is not a good way of
> getting a value for "now".

It is the best we can do.

> By the way, neither is sched_clock() when
> measuring small time differences as it is not monotonic (something that
> I had to allow for in my scheduling code).

I'm pretty sure it is monotonic, actually. I know some CPUs can execute
rdtsc speculatively, but I don't think it would ever be sane to execute
two rdtsc's in the wrong order.

> I applied no such safeguards
> to the timing used by the load balancing code as I assumed that it
> already worked.

It should (modulo this bug).
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.048 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site