linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] sched: Avoid unnecessary work in reweight

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F4617AB.2080401@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:40:43 +0800
From:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] sched: Avoid unnecessary work in reweight_entity

On 02/20/2012 09:08 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Hi, Peter

Sorry for reply so late, I was blocked by some issue army while setup the 
testing environment.

> On Sat, 2012-02-18 at 09:43 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> And as reight_entity is invoked very often, I think this patch can do some help to the 
>> performance, although there are no numbers, we can prove it logically :)  
> 
> Well, you're probably right (although I think you completely ignored the
> optimizing compiler), but still it would be good to get some numbers to
> confirm reality :-)


That's right, if consider the compiler's optimization, the logic improvements 
I listed may not be true...

> 

> Just pick your favourite cgroup workload/benchmark and run a pre/post
> comparison, possible using perf record.
> 
> If all squares up you should see an improvement in your benchmark score
> as well as see a reduction in time spend in the function you're
> patching.


So I created a cpuset cgroup 'rg1' and his sub memory group 'sub',
attached current shell to 'sub', then use 'time make kernel' as benchmark.

Below is the test result:

'time make':
old
	real: 87m53.804s	user: 66m41.886s	sys: 11m51.792s
new
	real: 86m8.485s		user: 65m49.211s	sys: 11m47.264s

'time make -j14':
old:	
	real: 42m43.825s	user: 124m13.726s	sys: 17m57.183s
new
	real: 39m0.072s		user: 114m33.258s	sys: 15m30.662s

I also try to use 'perf sched record', but I can only record few seconds time,
otherwise it will be too big and report some error, as the record time is too 
short, results are very different from each other, I failed to use them to prove 
the patch:(

I also have try to use some other method, I moved 'reweight_entity' and related 
functions to user space, and invoke it 10000000 times in 'main', I have append 
part of the code (really raw...) in the end.

Three times output is:

old:
	real	0m0.715s	0m0.710s	0m0.739s
	user	0m0.716s	0m0.708s	0m0.736s
	sys	0m0.000s	0m0.000s	0m0.000s

new:
	real	0m0.318s	0m0.308s	0m0.317s
	user	0m0.316s	0m0.304s	0m0.316s
	sys	0m0.000s	0m0.000s	0m0.000s

It seems like that new code can save more then half execution time, but also we 
can see, after calculation, what I have done can only save 0.04ns(too small...).

The user space test result is not accurate but at least we can know new code is
faster then old.

Please tell me if we need to do some thing else, and thanks for your suggestion :)

Regards,
Michael Wang



User space code:

void
account_entity_enqueue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
{
        update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight);
        if (1)
                update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight);
        if (1) {
                add_cfs_task_weight(cfs_rq, se->load.weight);
                list_add(&se->group_node, &cfs_rq->tasks);
        }
        cfs_rq->nr_running++;
}

void
account_entity_dequeue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
{
        update_load_sub(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight);
        if (1)
                update_load_sub(&cfs_rq->load, se->load.weight);
        if (1) {
                add_cfs_task_weight(cfs_rq, -se->load.weight);
                list_del_init(&se->group_node);
        }
        cfs_rq->nr_running--;
}

void reweight_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se,
                            unsigned long weight)
{
        if (1) {
                account_entity_dequeue(cfs_rq, se);
        }

        update_load_set(&se->load, weight);

        if (1)
                account_entity_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
}

void reweight_entity_new(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se,
                            unsigned long weight)
{
        if (1) {
                update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, weight - se->load.weight);
                if(1)
                        update_load_add(&cfs_rq->load, weight -
se->load.weight);
                if(1)
                        add_cfs_task_weight(cfs_rq, weight
-se->load.weight);
        }
        update_load_set(&se->load, weight);
}

int main()
{
        struct cfs_rq cfsrq;
        struct sched_entity se;
        memset(&cfsrq, 0, sizeof(struct cfs_rq));
        memset(&se, 0, sizeof(struct sched_entity));
        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&se.group_node);
        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cfsrq.tasks);
        int i = 10000000;
        while(i) {
                i--;
                reweight_entity_new(&cfsrq, &se, 10);
                //reweight_entity(&cfsrq, &se, 10);
        }
}

> --
> 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/
> 








--
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/