Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | "Chen, Kenneth W" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention | Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2006 02:36:54 -0700 |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 1:56 AM > Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > > Ha, you beat me by one minute. It did cross my mind to use try lock there as > > well, take a look at my version, I think I have a better inner loop. > > Actually you *have* to use trylocks I think, because the current runqueue > is already locked. > > And why do we lock all siblings in the other case, for that matter? (not > that it makes much difference except on niagara today). > > Rolled up patch with everyone's changes attached.
OK, it's down to nit-picking now:
Remove this_rq argument from wake_sleeping_dependent() since it is not used. Nick, you had that in your earlier version, but it got lost in the woods.
I don't like cpumask being declared on the stack. Here is my version to rid it out in wake_sleeping_dependent() and dependent_sleeper().
- Ken
--- ./kernel/sched.c.orig 2006-06-02 03:20:40.000000000 -0700 +++ ./kernel/sched.c 2006-06-02 03:20:59.000000000 -0700 @@ -2714,10 +2714,9 @@ static inline void wakeup_busy_runqueue( /* * Called with interrupts disabled and this_rq's runqueue locked. */ -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) @@ -2728,10 +2727,11 @@ static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int if (!sd) return; - sibling_map = sd->span; - cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map); - for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) { + for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span) { runqueue_t *smt_rq = cpu_rq(i); + + if (i == this_cpu) + continue; if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&smt_rq->lock))) continue; @@ -2761,7 +2761,6 @@ static int dependent_sleeper(int this_cp struct task_struct *p) { struct sched_domain *tmp, *sd = NULL; - cpumask_t sibling_map; int ret = 0, i; for_each_domain(this_cpu, tmp) @@ -2772,12 +2771,13 @@ static int dependent_sleeper(int this_cp if (!sd) return 0; - sibling_map = sd->span; - cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map); - for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) { + for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span) { runqueue_t *smt_rq; task_t *smt_curr; + if (i == this_cpu) + continue; + smt_rq = cpu_rq(i); if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&smt_rq->lock))) continue; @@ -2842,7 +2842,7 @@ 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) { } @@ -2973,7 +2973,7 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible: if (!rq->nr_running) { next = rq->idle; rq->expired_timestamp = 0; - wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu, rq); + 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/
| |