lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] sched: enable interrupts and drop rq-lock duringnewidle balancing
From
Date
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 07:15 -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 6:13 AM, in message <1214302405.4351.21.camel@twins>,
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 17:04 -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >> We do find_busiest_groups() et. al. without locks held for normal balancing,
> >> so lets do it for newidle as well. It will allow other cpus to make
> >> forward progress (against our RQ) while we try to balance and allow
> >> some interrupts to occur.
> >
> > Is running f_b_g really that expensive?
>
> According to our oprofile data, yes. I speculate that it works out that way because most newidle
> attempts result in "no imbalance". But we were spending ~60%+ time in find_busiest_groups()
> because of all the heavy-context switching that goes on in PREEMPT_RT. So while f_b_g() is
> probably cheaper than double-lock/move_tasks(), the ratio of occurrence is off the charts in
> comparison. Prior to this patch, those occurrences were preempt-disabled/irq-disabled/rq->lock critical
> sections.
>
> So while it is not clear if f_b_g() is the actual cost, it is a convenient (and legal, afaict) place to
> deterministically reduce the rq->lock scope. Additionally, doing so measurably helps
> performance, so I think its a win. Without this patch you have to hope the double_lock releases
> this_rq, and even so were not checking for the NEEDS_RESCHED.

See, having had this information in the changelog to begin with would
have helped ;-)





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-24 14:29    [W:0.083 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site