[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230627101437.GY4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 12:14:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Cc: Deng Pan <pan.deng@...el.com>, tim.c.chen@...el.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tianyou.li@...el.com, yu.ma@...el.com, lipeng.zhu@...el.com,
yu.c.chen@...el.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/task_group: Re-layout structure to reduce false
sharing
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 01:47:56PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > index ec7b3e0a2b20..4fbd4b3a4bdd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > @@ -389,6 +389,19 @@ struct task_group {
> > #endif
> > #endif
> >
> > + struct rcu_head rcu;
> > + struct list_head list;
> > +
> > + struct list_head siblings;
> > + struct list_head children;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * To reduce false sharing, current layout is optimized to make
> > + * sure load_avg is in a different cacheline from parent, rt_se
> > + * and rt_rq.
> > + */
That comment is misleading I think; you don't particularly care about
those fields more than any other active fields that would cause false
sharing.
> > + struct task_group *parent;
> > +
>
> I wonder if we can simply do:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index ec7b3e0a2b20..31b73e8d9568 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -385,7 +385,9 @@ struct task_group {
> * it in its own cacheline separated from the fields above which
> * will also be accessed at each tick.
> */
> - atomic_long_t load_avg ____cacheline_aligned;
> + struct {
> + atomic_long_t load_avg;
> + } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> #endif
> #endif
>
> This way it can make sure there is no false sharing with load_avg no
> matter how the layout of this structure changes in the future.
This. Also, ISTR there was a series to split this atomic across nodes;
whatever happend to that, and can we still measure an improvement over
this with that approach?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists