linux-kernel - [PATCH v3 4/4] sched: use highest_prio.next to optimize pull operations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081204154357.21712.52115.stgit@dev.haskins.net>
Date:	Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:43:57 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	mingo@...e.hu
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, ghaskins@...ell.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 4/4] sched: use highest_prio.next to optimize pull
	operations

We currently take the rq->lock for every cpu in an overload state during
pull_rt_tasks().  However, we now have enough information via the
highest_prio.[curr|next] fields to determine if there is any tasks of
interest to warrant the overhead of the rq->lock, before we actually take
it.  So we use this information to reduce lock contention during the
pull for the case where the source-rq doesnt have tasks that preempt
the current task.

Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
---

 kernel/sched_rt.c |   12 ++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c
index ffdd00e..afcc67a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c
@@ -1220,6 +1220,18 @@ static int pull_rt_task(struct rq *this_rq)
 			continue;
 
 		src_rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
+
+		/*
+		 * Don't bother taking the src_rq->lock if the next highest
+		 * task is known to be lower-priority than our current task.
+		 * This may look racy, but if this value is about to go
+		 * logically higher, the src_rq will push this task away.
+		 * And if its going logically lower, we do not care
+		 */
+		if (src_rq->rt.highest_prio.next >=
+		    this_rq->rt.highest_prio.curr)
+			continue;
+
 		/*
 		 * We can potentially drop this_rq's lock in
 		 * double_lock_balance, and another CPU could

--
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/