[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334073127.23924.213.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:52:07 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]sched_rt.c: Avoid unnecessary dequeue and enqueue of
pushable tasks in set_cpus_allowed_rt()
On Sun, 2012-02-19 at 18:17 +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> ---
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 3640ebb..bf48343 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -1779,43 +1779,36 @@ static void set_cpus_allowed_rt(struct task_struct *p,
> const struct cpumask *new_mask)
> {
> int weight = cpumask_weight(new_mask);
Lets move the assignment of weight down. Gcc may optimize, but I don't
want to rely on it.
> + struct rq *rq;
>
> BUG_ON(!rt_task(p));
>
> /*
> - * Update the migration status of the RQ if we have an RT task
> - * which is running AND changing its weight value.
> + * Just exit if it's not necessary to change migration status
Let's comment this better. Something like:
Only update if the process changes its state from whether it
can migrate or not.
> */
> - if (p->on_rq && (weight != p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed)) {
> - struct rq *rq = task_rq(p);
> -
> - if (!task_current(rq, p)) {
> - /*
> - * Make sure we dequeue this task from the pushable list
> - * before going further. It will either remain off of
> - * the list because we are no longer pushable, or it
> - * will be requeued.
> - */
> - if (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)
> - dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> -
> - /*
> - * Requeue if our weight is changing and still > 1
> - */
> - if (weight > 1)
> - enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> + if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1) == (weight > 1))
> + return;
>
> - }
> + if (!p->on_rq)
> + return;
Make the on_rq check first, and move the weight calculation below it.
Why calculate the weight if we don't plan on doing anything with it?
>
> - if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed <= 1) && (weight > 1)) {
> - rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory++;
> - } else if ((p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1) && (weight <= 1)) {
> - BUG_ON(!rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory);
> - rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory--;
> - }
> + rq = task_rq(p);
>
> - update_rt_migration(&rq->rt);
> + /*
> + * Several cpus were allowed but now it's not so OR vice versa
I rather say:
The process use to be able to migrate OR it can now migrate
Otherwise, the patch looks good.
Thanks,
-- Steve
P.S. I don't have any more trips in the near future, so I should be much
quicker in my responses ;-)
> + */
> + if (weight <= 1) {
> + if (!task_current(rq, p))
> + dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> + BUG_ON(!rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory);
> + rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory--;
> + } else {
> + if (!task_current(rq, p))
> + enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> + rq->rt.rt_nr_migratory++;
> }
> +
> + update_rt_migration(&rq->rt);
> }
>
> /* Assumes rq->lock is held */
--
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