[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDjEMJeoZgE1an9Nh9QZPc2gJetsZHL+8QAWzqX5_znvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 11:04:57 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched,fair: skip newidle_balance if a wakeup is pending
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 at 18:51, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
>
> The try_to_wake_up function has an optimization where it can queue
> a task for wakeup on its previous CPU, if the task is still in the
> middle of going to sleep inside schedule().
>
> Once schedule() re-enables IRQs, the task will be woken up with an
> IPI, and placed back on the runqueue.
>
> If we have such a wakeup pending, there is no need to search other
> CPUs for runnable tasks. Just skip (or bail out early from) newidle
> balancing, and run the just woken up task.
>
> For a memcache like workload test, this reduces total CPU use by
> about 2%, proportionally split between user and system time,
> and p99 and p95 application response time by 2-3% on average.
> The schedstats run_delay number shows a similar improvement.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - fix !SMP build error and prev-not-CFS case by moving check into newidle_balance
> - fix formatting of if condition
> - audit newidle_balance return value use to make sure we get that right
> - reset idle_stamp when breaking out of the loop due to ->ttwu_pending
>
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 69680158963f..5e26f013e182 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -10594,6 +10594,14 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> u64 curr_cost = 0;
>
> update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
> +
> + /*
> + * There is a task waiting to run. No need to search for one.
> + * Return 0; the task will be enqueued when switching to idle.
> + */
> + if (this_rq->ttwu_pending)
> + return 0;
> +
> /*
> * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
> * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.
> @@ -10661,7 +10669,8 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> * Stop searching for tasks to pull if there are
> * now runnable tasks on this rq.
> */
> - if (pulled_task || this_rq->nr_running > 0)
> + if (pulled_task || this_rq->nr_running > 0 ||
> + this_rq->ttwu_pending)
> break;
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> @@ -10688,7 +10697,7 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> if (this_rq->nr_running != this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running)
> pulled_task = -1;
>
> - if (pulled_task)
> + if (pulled_task || this_rq->ttwu_pending)
This needs at least a comment to explain why we must clear
this_rq->idle_stamp when this_rq->ttwu_pending is set whereas it is
also done during sched_ttwu_pending()
> this_rq->idle_stamp = 0;
>
> rq_repin_lock(this_rq, rf);
> --
> 2.25.4
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists