linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() for wake

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]

Date:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:09:46 +0800
From:	Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() for wake_affine(.sync=true)

Hi, Peter

On 09/26/2013 05:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 2b89cd2..47b0d0f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -2913,6 +2913,17 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>  	struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
>  	int task_sleep = flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP;
> 
> +	if (se->last_sync_wakeup) {
> +		u64 overlap;
> +		s64 diff;
> +	       
> +		overlap = rq->clock - se->last_sync_wakeup;
> +		se->last_sync_wakeup = 0;
> +
> +		diff = overlap - se->avg_overlap;
> +		se->avg_overlap += diff >> 8;
> +	}
> +
>  	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
>  		cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
>  		dequeue_entity(cfs_rq, se, flags);
> @@ -3429,6 +3440,9 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
>  	int want_affine = 0;
>  	int sync = wake_flags & WF_SYNC;
> 
> +	if (sync)
> +		p->se.last_sync_wakeup = sched_clock_cpu(cpu);

Forgive me but I'm trying to understand it... why not 'current' but 'p'
here? we want the get off speed of waker or the working time of wakee?

Regards,
Michael Wang

> +
>  	if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
>  		return prev_cpu;
> 
> @@ -3461,6 +3475,17 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
>  		if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
>  			prev_cpu = cpu;
> 
> +		/*
> +		 * Don't bother with select_idle_sibling() in the case of a sync wakeup
> +		 * where we know the only running task will soon go-away. Going
> +		 * through select_idle_sibling will only lead to pointless ping-pong.
> +		 */
> +		if (sync && prev_cpu == cpu && cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_running == 1 &&
> +		    current->se.avg_overlap < 10000) {
> +			new_cpu = cpu;
> +			goto unlock;
> +		}
> +
>  		new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
>  		goto unlock;
>  	}
> --
> 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/