lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was: Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)

Kouichi,

how many Apache processes are you running? MaxSpareServers?

This patch is a moderate rewrite of __wake_up_common. I'd be
interested in seeing how much difference it makes to the
performance of Apache when the file-locking serialisation is
disabled.

- It implements last-in/first-out semantics for waking
TASK_EXCLUSIVE tasks.

- It fixes what was surely a bug wherein __wake_up_common
scans the entire wait queue even when it has found the
task which it wants to run.

On a dual-CPU box it dramatically increases the max connection
rate when there are a large number of waiters:

#waiters conn/sec (t10-p5+patch) conn/sec (t10-p5)
30 5525 4990
100 5700 4100
1000 5600 1500

This will be due entirely to the queue scanning fix - my
test app has a negligible cache footprint.

It's stable, but it's a work-in-progress.

- __wake_up_common does a fair amount of SMP-specific
stuff when compiled for UP which needs sorting out

- it seems there's somebody in the networking code who
changes a task state incorrectly when it's on a wait
queue. This used to be OK, but it's not OK now that
I'm relying upon the wait queue being in the state
which it should be.

Thanks.



--- linux-2.4.0-test10-pre5/kernel/sched.c Sun Oct 15 01:27:46 2000
+++ linux-akpm/kernel/sched.c Wed Nov 1 01:54:44 2000
@@ -697,6 +697,53 @@
return;
}

+#if WAITQUEUE_DEBUG
+/*
+ * Check that the wait queue is in the correct order:
+ * !TASK_EXCLUSIVE at the head
+ * TASK_EXCLUSIVE at the tail
+ * The list is locked.
+ */
+
+static void check_wq_sanity(wait_queue_head_t *q)
+{
+ struct list_head *probe, *head;
+
+ head = &q->task_list;
+ probe = head->next;
+ while (probe != head) {
+ wait_queue_t *curr = list_entry(probe, wait_queue_t, task_list);
+ if (curr->task->state & TASK_EXCLUSIVE)
+ break;
+ probe = probe->next;
+ }
+ while (probe != head) {
+ wait_queue_t *curr = list_entry(probe, wait_queue_t, task_list);
+ if (!(curr->task->state & TASK_EXCLUSIVE)) {
+ printk("check_wq_sanity: mangled wait queue\n");
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86
+ show_stack(0);
+#endif
+ break;
+ }
+ probe = probe->next;
+ }
+}
+#endif /* WAITQUEUE_DEBUG */
+
+/*
+ * Wake up some tasks which are on *q.
+ *
+ * All tasks which are !TASK_EXCLUSIVE are woken.
+ * Only one TASK_EXCLUSIVE task is woken.
+ * The !TASK_EXCLUSIVE tasks start at q->task_list.next
+ * The TASK_EXCLUSIVE tasks start at q->task_list.prev
+ *
+ * When waking a TASK_EXCLUSIVE task we search backward,
+ * so we find the most-recently-added task (it will have the
+ * hottest cache)
+ */
+
static inline void __wake_up_common (wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
const int sync)
{
@@ -714,6 +761,7 @@
wq_write_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);

#if WAITQUEUE_DEBUG
+ check_wq_sanity(q);
CHECK_MAGIC_WQHEAD(q);
#endif

@@ -722,6 +770,11 @@
if (!head->next || !head->prev)
WQ_BUG();
#endif
+
+ /*
+ * if (mode & TASK_EXCLUSIVE) Wake all the !TASK_EXCLUSIVE tasks
+ * if !(mode & TASK_EXCLUSIVE) Wake all the tasks
+ */
tmp = head->next;
while (tmp != head) {
unsigned int state;
@@ -734,40 +787,69 @@
#endif
p = curr->task;
state = p->state;
+ if (state & mode & TASK_EXCLUSIVE)
+ break; /* Finished all !TASK_EXCLUSIVEs */
if (state & (mode & ~TASK_EXCLUSIVE)) {
#if WAITQUEUE_DEBUG
curr->__waker = (long)__builtin_return_address(0);
#endif
- /*
- * If waking up from an interrupt context then
- * prefer processes which are affine to this
- * CPU.
- */
- if (irq && (state & mode & TASK_EXCLUSIVE)) {
+ if (sync)
+ wake_up_process_synchronous(p);
+ else
+ wake_up_process(p);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Now wake one TASK_EXCLUSIVE task.
+ */
+ if (mode & TASK_EXCLUSIVE) {
+ tmp = head->prev;
+ while (tmp != head) {
+ unsigned int state;
+ wait_queue_t *curr = list_entry(tmp, wait_queue_t, task_list);
+
+ tmp = tmp->prev;
+#if WAITQUEUE_DEBUG
+ CHECK_MAGIC(curr->__magic);
+#endif
+ p = curr->task;
+ state = p->state;
+ if (!(state & TASK_EXCLUSIVE))
+ break; /* Exhausted all TASK_EXCLUSIVEs */
+
+ if (state & mode) {
+ /*
+ * If waking up from an interrupt context then
+ * prefer processes which are affine to this
+ * CPU.
+ */
if (!best_exclusive)
best_exclusive = p;
- else if ((p->processor == best_cpu) &&
- (best_exclusive->processor != best_cpu))
+ if (irq) {
+ if (p->processor == best_cpu) {
best_exclusive = p;
- } else {
- if (sync)
- wake_up_process_synchronous(p);
- else
- wake_up_process(p);
- if (state & mode & TASK_EXCLUSIVE)
+ break;
+ }
+ } else {
break;
+ }
}
}
- }
- if (best_exclusive)
- best_exclusive->state = TASK_RUNNING;
- wq_write_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
-
- if (best_exclusive) {
- if (sync)
- wake_up_process_synchronous(best_exclusive);
- else
- wake_up_process(best_exclusive);
+
+ if (best_exclusive)
+ best_exclusive->state = TASK_RUNNING;
+
+ wq_write_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
+
+ if (best_exclusive) {
+ if (sync)
+ wake_up_process_synchronous(best_exclusive);
+ else
+ wake_up_process(best_exclusive);
+ }
+ } else {
+ wq_write_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
}
out:
return;
--- linux-2.4.0-test10-pre5/kernel/fork.c Sat Sep 9 16:19:30 2000
+++ linux-akpm/kernel/fork.c Wed Nov 1 02:08:00 2000
@@ -39,6 +39,14 @@
unsigned long flags;

wq_write_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
+#if WAITQUEUE_DEBUG
+ if (wait->task.state & TASK_EXCLUSIVE) {
+ printk("add_wait_queue: exclusive task added at head!\n");
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86
+ show_stack(0);
+#endif
+ }
+#endif
__add_wait_queue(q, wait);
wq_write_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
}
@@ -48,6 +56,14 @@
unsigned long flags;

wq_write_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
+#if WAITQUEUE_DEBUG
+ if (!(wait->task.state & TASK_EXCLUSIVE)) {
+ printk("add_wait_queue: non-exclusive task added at tail!\n");
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86
+ show_stack(0);
+#endif
+ }
+#endif
__add_wait_queue_tail(q, wait);
wq_write_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:45    [W:0.129 / U:1.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site