lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subject[patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q0

i've uploaded the -Q0 patch:

http://redhat.com/~mingo/voluntary-preempt/voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q0

note that since -bk4 doesnt exist yet, i've uploaded a patch that brings
2.6.8.1 up to BK-curr:

http://redhat.com/~mingo/voluntary-preempt/diff-bk-040828-2.6.8.1.bz2

apply this patch to 2.6.8.1 before applying the -Q0 patch.

Changes:

there are a number of fundamental changes in the -Q0, of both structural
and functional nature.

Structural changes:

Linus' current BK tree (what will be 2.6.9-rc1-bk4) has just merged most
of the might_sleep() improvements we did for -mm and a bunch of other
changes that were part of the voluntary-preempt patchset. So i've
started a pre-merge cleanup of the voluntary-preempt patchset, to be
able to merge as much of the remaining stuff upstream as possible. This
doesnt (necessarily) mean voluntary-preempt itself will be merged, it
means that the independent latency improvements move out of the
voluntary-preemption umbrella and will go upstream.

About the cleanup:

Firstly, the user controls have changed. There are now 4 independent
flags in /proc/sys/kernel/: kernel_preemption, voluntary_preemption,
softirq_preemption and hardirq_preemption - each default to a value of 1
(enabled). NOTE: levels 2,3 for voluntary_preemption is not valid
anymore, each of the flags can be 0 or 1. The flags control what their
name says, for best latencies one should keep all of them enabled.

Similarly, there are 4 independent options for the .config:
CONFIG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY, CONFIG_PREEMPT_SOFTIRQS and
CONFIG_PREEMPT_HARDIRQS. (In theory all of these options should compile
independently, but i've only tested all-enabled so far.)

Internally, the voluntary_ prefixed conditional reschedule variants were
replaced by the existing cond_resched(), cond_resched_lock(),
need_resched()/etc. infrastructure.

Functional changes:

i took another look at SMP latencies, the last larger chunk of code that
produced millisec-category latencies. CONFIG_PREEMPT tries to solve some
of the SMP issues but there were still lots of problems remaining: main
problem area is spinlocks nested at multiple levels. If a piece of code
(e.g. the MM or ext3's journalling code) does the following:

spin_lock(&spinlock_1);
...
spin_lock(&spinlock_2);
...

then even with CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled, current kernels may spin on
spinlock_2 indefinitely. A number of critical sections break their long
paths by using cond_resched_lock(), but this does not break the path on
SMP, because need_resched() is not set in the above case.

(The -mm kernel introduced a couple of patches that try to drop
spinlocks unconditionally at a high frequency: but besides being a
kludge it's also a performance problem, we keep
dropping/waiting/retaking locks quite frequently. That solution also
doesnt solve the problem of cond_resched_lock() not working on SMP.)

to solve the problem i've introduced a new spinlock field,
lock->break_lock, which signals towards the holding CPU that a
spinlock-break is requested by another CPU. This field is only set if a
CPU is spinning in __preempt_spin_lock [at any locking depth], so the
default overhead is zero. I've extended cond_resched_lock() to check for
this flag - in this case we can also save a reschedule. I've added the
lock_need_resched(lock) and need_lockbreak(lock) methods to check for
the need to break out of a critical section.

preliminary results on a dual x86 box show a dramatic reduction in
latencies on SMP - where there used to be 5-10 msec latencies there are
close-to-UP latencies now. But it needs more testing.

the -Q0 patch also adds a number of lock-breaks that are part of the -mm
tree: e.g. the PTY lock-break.

please re-send any patches that i havent merged yet, and re-report
latencies that still occur with -Q0.

Ingo
-
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 14:05    [W:0.297 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site