Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 17 May 2005 15:37:07 -0700 (PDT) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | [PATCH] Optimize sys_times for a single thread process |
| |
Avoid taking the tasklist_lock in sys_times if the process is single threaded. In a NUMA system taking the tasklist_lock may cause a bouncing cacheline if multiple independent processes continually call sys_times to measure their performance.
Patch against 2.6.12-rc4
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com> Signed-off-by: Shai Fultheim <shai@scalex86.org>
Index: linux-2.6.11/kernel/sys.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.11.orig/kernel/sys.c 2005-05-17 12:46:12.000000000 -0700 +++ linux-2.6.11/kernel/sys.c 2005-05-17 12:59:36.000000000 -0700 @@ -894,35 +894,49 @@ asmlinkage long sys_times(struct tms __u */ if (tbuf) { struct tms tmp; - struct task_struct *tsk = current; - struct task_struct *t; cputime_t utime, stime, cutime, cstime; - read_lock(&tasklist_lock); - utime = tsk->signal->utime; - stime = tsk->signal->stime; - t = tsk; - do { - utime = cputime_add(utime, t->utime); - stime = cputime_add(stime, t->stime); - t = next_thread(t); - } while (t != tsk); - - /* - * While we have tasklist_lock read-locked, no dying thread - * can be updating current->signal->[us]time. Instead, - * we got their counts included in the live thread loop. - * However, another thread can come in right now and - * do a wait call that updates current->signal->c[us]time. - * To make sure we always see that pair updated atomically, - * we take the siglock around fetching them. - */ - spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock); - cutime = tsk->signal->cutime; - cstime = tsk->signal->cstime; - spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock); - read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); + if (current == next_thread(current)) { + /* + * Single thread case. We do not need to scan the tasklist + * and thus can avoid the read_lock(&task_list_lock). We + * also do not need to take the siglock since we + * are the only thread in this process + */ + utime = cputime_add(current->signal->utime, current->utime); + stime = cputime_add(current->signal->utime, current->stime); + cutime = current->signal->cutime; + cstime = current->signal->cstime; + } else { + /* Process with multiple threads */ + struct task_struct *tsk = current; + struct task_struct *t; + + read_lock(&tasklist_lock); + utime = tsk->signal->utime; + stime = tsk->signal->stime; + t = tsk; + do { + utime = cputime_add(utime, t->utime); + stime = cputime_add(stime, t->stime); + t = next_thread(t); + } while (t != tsk); + /* + * While we have tasklist_lock read-locked, no dying thread + * can be updating current->signal->[us]time. Instead, + * we got their counts included in the live thread loop. + * However, another thread can come in right now and + * do a wait call that updates current->signal->c[us]time. + * To make sure we always see that pair updated atomically, + * we take the siglock around fetching them. + */ + spin_lock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock); + cutime = tsk->signal->cutime; + cstime = tsk->signal->cstime; + spin_unlock_irq(&tsk->sighand->siglock); + read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); + } tmp.tms_utime = cputime_to_clock_t(utime); tmp.tms_stime = cputime_to_clock_t(stime); tmp.tms_cutime = cputime_to_clock_t(cutime); - 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/
| |