lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
Date
Con Kolivas wrote on Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:55 PM
> On Friday 02 June 2006 12:28, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Actually looking even further, we only introduced the extra lookup of the
> > next task when we started unlocking the runqueue in schedule(). Since we
> > can get by without locking this_rq in schedule with this approach we can
> > simplify dependent_sleeper even further by doing the dependent sleeper
> > check after we have discovered what next is in schedule and avoid looking
> > it up twice. I'll hack something up to do that soon.
>
> Something like this (sorry I couldn't help but keep hacking on it).
> ---
> It is not critical to functioning that dependent_sleeper() succeeds every
> time. We can significantly reduce the locking overhead and contention of
> dependent_sleeper by only doing trylock on the smt sibling runqueues. As
> we're only doing trylock it means we do not need to observe the normal
> locking order and we can get away without unlocking this_rq in schedule().
> This provides us with an opportunity to simplify the code further.


The code in wake_sleeping_dependent() is also quite wacky: it unlocks
current runqueue, then re-acquires ALL the sibling runqueue lock, only
to call wakeup_busy_runqueue() against the smt sibling runqueue other
than itself. AFAICT, wakeup_busy_runqueue() does not require *ALL*
sibling lock to be held.

Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>

--- ./kernel/sched.c.orig 2006-06-02 01:57:28.000000000 -0700
+++ ./kernel/sched.c 2006-06-02 02:19:37.000000000 -0700
@@ -2712,44 +2712,32 @@ static inline void wakeup_busy_runqueue(
resched_task(rq->idle);
}

-static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
+static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu)
{
struct sched_domain *tmp, *sd = NULL;
- cpumask_t sibling_map;
int i;

for_each_domain(this_cpu, tmp)
- if (tmp->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER)
+ if (tmp->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER) {
sd = tmp;
+ break;
+ }

if (!sd)
return;

- /*
- * Unlock the current runqueue because we have to lock in
- * CPU order to avoid deadlocks. Caller knows that we might
- * unlock. We keep IRQs disabled.
- */
- spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
-
- sibling_map = sd->span;
-
- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
- spin_lock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
- /*
- * We clear this CPU from the mask. This both simplifies the
- * inner loop and keps this_rq locked when we exit:
- */
- cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map);
+ for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span) {
+ runqueue_t *smt_rq;

- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) {
- runqueue_t *smt_rq = cpu_rq(i);
+ if (i == this_cpu)
+ continue;

+ smt_rq = cpu_rq(i);
+ spin_lock(&smt_rq->lock);
wakeup_busy_runqueue(smt_rq);
+ spin_unlock(&smt_rq->lock);
}

- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
- spin_unlock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
/*
* We exit with this_cpu's rq still held and IRQs
* still disabled:
@@ -2857,7 +2845,7 @@ check_smt_task:
return ret;
}
#else
-static inline void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
+static inline void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu)
{
}

@@ -2988,14 +2976,8 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
if (!rq->nr_running) {
next = rq->idle;
rq->expired_timestamp = 0;
- wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu, rq);
- /*
- * wake_sleeping_dependent() might have released
- * the runqueue, so break out if we got new
- * tasks meanwhile:
- */
- if (!rq->nr_running)
- goto switch_tasks;
+ wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu);
+ goto switch_tasks;
}
}

-
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: 2006-06-02 10:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site