[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200117174129.945230768@goodmis.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:41:28 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH RT 17/32] lib/smp_processor_id: Dont use cpumask_equal()
4.19.94-rt39-rc1 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
[ Upstream commit 659252061477862f45b79e1de169e6030f5c8918 ]
The check_preemption_disabled() function uses cpumask_equal() to see
if the task is bounded to the current CPU only. cpumask_equal() calls
memcmp() to do the comparison. As x86 doesn't have __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCMP,
the slow memcmp() function in lib/string.c is used.
On a RT kernel that call check_preemption_disabled() very frequently,
below is the perf-record output of a certain microbenchmark:
42.75% 2.45% testpmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] check_preemption_disabled
40.01% 39.97% testpmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcmp
We should avoid calling memcmp() in performance critical path. So the
cpumask_equal() call is now replaced with an equivalent simpler check.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
---
lib/smp_processor_id.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/smp_processor_id.c b/lib/smp_processor_id.c
index fb35c45b9421..b8a8a8db2d75 100644
--- a/lib/smp_processor_id.c
+++ b/lib/smp_processor_id.c
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ notrace static unsigned int check_preemption_disabled(const char *what1,
* Kernel threads bound to a single CPU can safely use
* smp_processor_id():
*/
- if (cpumask_equal(current->cpus_ptr, cpumask_of(this_cpu)))
+ if (current->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
goto out;
/*
--
2.24.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists