[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080221070733.GA13694@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:07:33 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peter@...gramming.kicks-ass.net>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Make yield_task_fair more efficient
* Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I disagree. The cost is only adding a field to cfs_rq [...]
wrong. The cost is "only" of adding a field to cfs_rq and _updating it_,
in the hottest paths of the scheduler:
@@ -256,6 +257,7 @@ static void __enqueue_entity(struct cfs_
*/
if (key < entity_key(cfs_rq, entry)) {
link = &parent->rb_left;
+ rightmost = 0;
} else {
link = &parent->rb_right;
leftmost = 0;
@@ -268,6 +270,8 @@ static void __enqueue_entity(struct cfs_
*/
if (leftmost)
cfs_rq->rb_leftmost = &se->run_node;
+ if (rightmost)
+ cfs_rq->rb_rightmost = &se->run_node;
> [...] For a large number of tasks - say 10000, we need to walk 14
> levels before we reach the node (each time). [...]
10,000 yield-ing tasks is not a common workload we care about. It's not
even a rare workload we care about. _Especially_ we dont care about it
if it slows down every other workload (a tiny bit).
> [...] Doesn't matter if the data is cached, we are still spending CPU
> time looking through pointers and walking to the right node. [...]
have you actually measured how much it takes to walk the tree that deep
on recent hardware? I have.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists