lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/8] sched: task_sched_runtime introduce micro optimization
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:35:47PM -0400, kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com wrote:
> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>
> rq lock in task_sched_runtime() is necessary for two reasons. 1)
> accessing se.sum_exec_runtime is not atomic on 32bit and 2)
> do_task_delta_exec() require it.
>
> So, 64bit can avoid holding rq lock when add_delta is false and
> delta_exec is 0.
>
> Cc: Olivier Langlois <olivier@trillion01.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Suggested-by: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 96512e9..0f859cc 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2692,6 +2692,21 @@ unsigned long long task_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *p, bool add_delta)
> struct rq *rq;
> u64 ns = 0;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
> + /*
> + * 64-bit doesn't need locks to atomically read a 64bit value. So we
> + * have two optimization chances, 1) when caller doesn't need
> + * delta_exec and 2) when the task's delta_exec is 0. The former is
> + * obvious. The latter is complicated. reading ->on_cpu is racy, but
> + * this is ok. If we race with it leaving cpu, we'll take a lock. So
> + * we're correct. If we race with it entering cpu, unaccounted time
> + * is 0. This is indistinguishable from the read occurring a few
> + * cycles earlier.
> + */
> + if (!add_delta || !p->on_cpu)
> + return p->se.sum_exec_runtime;

I'm not sure this is correct from an smp ordering POV. p->on_cpu may appear
to be 0 whereas the task is actually running for a while and p->se.sum_exec_runtime
can then be past the actual value on the remote CPU.

> +#endif
> +
> rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> ns = p->se.sum_exec_runtime;
> if (add_delta)
> --
> 1.7.1
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-06-18 17:01    [W:0.206 / U:0.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site