[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50D15231.2060602@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 11:05:45 +0530
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Jiannan Ouyang <ouyang@...pitt.edu>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@...il.com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 RFC 1/2] sched: Bail out of yield_to when source and
target runqueue has one task
[I forgot to do TO to Ingo last time]
Ingo,
Could you please take this into x86 tree.
This is
Acked-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Tested-by: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Marcelo, do you want to add your Acked-by/Reviewed-by?
On 12/14/2012 09:10 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> Could you please take this into x86 tree?
>
> Thanks,
> On 12/14/2012 05:59 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> Raghavendra,
>>
>> Please get this integrate through x86 tree (Ingo CC'ed).
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>
>>> In case of undercomitted scenarios, especially in large guests
>>> yield_to overhead is significantly high. when run queue length of
>>> source and target is one, take an opportunity to bail out and return
>>> -ESRCH. This return condition can be further exploited to quickly come
>>> out of PLE handler.
>>>
>>> (History: Raghavendra initially worked on break out of kvm ple
>>> handler upon
>>> seeing source runqueue length = 1, but it had to export rq length).
>>> Peter came up with the elegant idea of return -ESRCH in scheduler
>>> core.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>> Raghavendra, Checking the rq length of target vcpu condition
>>> added.(thanks Avi)
>>> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> index 2d8927f..fc219a5 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> @@ -4289,7 +4289,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
>>> * It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
>>> * can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
>>> *
>>> - * Returns true if we indeed boosted the target task.
>>> + * Returns:
>>> + * true (>0) if we indeed boosted the target task.
>>> + * false (0) if we failed to boost the target.
>>> + * -ESRCH if there's no task to yield to.
>>> */
>>> bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
>>> {
>>> @@ -4303,6 +4306,15 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p,
>>> bool preempt)
>>>
>>> again:
>>> p_rq = task_rq(p);
>>> + /*
>>> + * If we're the only runnable task on the rq and target rq also
>>> + * has only one task, there's absolutely no point in yielding.
>>> + */
>>> + if (rq->nr_running == 1 && p_rq->nr_running == 1) {
>>> + yielded = -ESRCH;
>>> + goto out_irq;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
>>> while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
>>> double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
>>> @@ -4310,13 +4322,13 @@ again:
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
>>> - goto out;
>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>
>>> yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
>>> if (yielded) {
>>> @@ -4329,11 +4341,12 @@ again:
>>> resched_task(p_rq->curr);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -out:
>>> +out_unlock:
>>> double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
>>> +out_irq:
>>> local_irq_restore(flags);
>>>
>>> - if (yielded)
>>> + if (yielded > 0)
>>> schedule();
>>>
>>> return yielded;
>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>>
>
--
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