[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200416065310.37539-1-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:53:10 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
mingo@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/cpuacct: Use __this_cpu_add() instead of this_cpu_ptr()
There seems to be no difference between the two, but on some
architectures(e.g. x86_64), there will be optimizations for
__this_cpu_add(). We can disassemble the code for you to see
the difference between them on x86_64.
1) this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpuusage)->usages[index] += cputime;
ffffffff810d7227: add %gs:0x7ef37fa9(%rip),%rax # f1d8 <this_cpu_off>
ffffffff810d722f: add %rsi,(%rax) # %rsi is @cputime
This result in two add instructions emitted by the compiler.
2) __this_cpu_add(ca->cpuusage->usages[index], cputime);
ffffffff810d7227: add %rsi,%gs:(%rax) # %rsi is @cputime
This result in only one add instruction emitted by the compiler.
So we have enough reasons to use the __this_cpu_add().
Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
---
kernel/sched/cpuacct.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
index 9fbb103834345..6448b0438ffb2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpuacct.c
@@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
rcu_read_lock();
for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca; ca = parent_ca(ca))
- this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpuusage)->usages[index] += cputime;
+ __this_cpu_add(ca->cpuusage->usages[index], cputime);
rcu_read_unlock();
}
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ void cpuacct_account_field(struct task_struct *tsk, int index, u64 val)
rcu_read_lock();
for (ca = task_ca(tsk); ca != &root_cpuacct; ca = parent_ca(ca))
- this_cpu_ptr(ca->cpustat)->cpustat[index] += val;
+ __this_cpu_add(ca->cpustat->cpustat[index], val);
rcu_read_unlock();
}
--
2.11.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists