[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPM31RJ0HWQCU=oDnd=iTyEZzsTS3xSe89rmgVK8cd8umAC5BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 04:50:12 -0700
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] sched: task_sched_runtime introduce micro optimization
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:17:17PM -0400, kosaki.motohiro@...il.com wrote:
>> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>>
>> rq lock in task_sched_runtime() is necessary for two reasons. 1)
>> accessing se.sum_exec_runtime is inatomic on 32bit and 2)
>> do_task_delta_exec() require it.
>>
>> And then, 64bit can avoid holds rq lock when add_delta is false.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 6 ++++++
>> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index b817e6d..24ba1c6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -2657,6 +2657,12 @@ unsigned long long task_sched_runtime(struct task_struct *p, bool add_delta)
>> struct rq *rq;
>> u64 ns = 0;
>>
>> + /* Micro optimization. */
>
> Instead of the above; how about something like:
>
> /* 64-bit doesn't need locks to atomically read a 64bit value */
>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>> + if (!add_delta)
>> + return p->se.sum_exec_runtime;
>> +#endif
Stronger:
+#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
+ if (!p->on_cpu)
+ return p->se.sum_exec_runtime;
+#endif
[ Or !p->on_cpu || !add_delta ].
We can take the racy read versus p->on_cpu since:
If we race with it leaving cpu: we take lock, we're correct
If we race with it entering cpu: unaccounted time ---> 0, this is
indistinguishable from the read occurring a few cycles earlier.
>>
>> rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
>> ns = p->se.sum_exec_runtime;
>> if (add_delta)
>> --
>> 1.7.1
>>
> --
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists