В Пн, 28/07/2014 в 13:05 +0400, Kirill Tkhai пишет:
> В Пн, 28/07/2014 в 10:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 06:59:21PM +0400, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >
> > > The profit is that double_rq_lock() is not needed now,
> > > and this may reduce the latencies in some situations.
> >
> > > We add a loop in the beginning of set_cpus_allowed_ptr.
> > > It's like a handmade spinlock, which is similar
> > > to situation we had before. We used to spin on rq->lock,
> > > now we spin on "again:" label. Of course, it's worse
> > > than arch-dependent spinlock, but we have to have it
> > > here.
> >
> > > @@ -4623,8 +4639,16 @@ int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p,
> > > const struct cpumask *new_mask)
> > > struct rq *rq;
> > > unsigned int dest_cpu;
> > > int ret = 0;
> > > +again:
> > > + while (unlikely(task_migrating(p)))
> > > + cpu_relax();
> > >
> > > rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> > > + /* Check again with rq locked */
> > > + if (unlikely(task_migrating(p))) {
> > > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &flags);
> > > + goto again;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > if (cpumask_equal(&p->cpus_allowed, new_mask))
> > > goto out;
> >
> > So I really dislike that, esp since you're now talking of adding more of
> > this goo all over the place.
> >
> > I'll ask again, why isn't this in task_rq_lock() and co?
>
> I thought, this may give a little profit in cases of priority inheritance etc.
> But since this is spreading throughout the scheduler, I'm agree with you.
> It's better to place this in task_rq_lock() etc. This will decide all
> the problems that we have discussed with Oleg.
>
> > Also, you really need to talk the spin bounded, otherwise your two
> > quoted paragraphs above are in contradiction. Now I think you can
> > actually make an argument that way, so that's good.
How about this? Everything is inside task_rq_lock() now. The patch
became much less.
From: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
sched: Teach scheduler to understand ONRQ_MIGRATING state
This is new on_rq state for the cases when task is migrating
from one src_rq to another dst_rq, and there is no necessity
to have both RQs locked at the same time.
We will use the state this way:
raw_spin_lock(&src_rq->lock);
dequeue_task(src_rq, p, 0);
p->on_rq = ONRQ_MIGRATING;
set_task_cpu(p, dst_cpu);
raw_spin_unlock(&src_rq->lock);
raw_spin_lock(&dst_rq->lock);
p->on_rq = ONRQ_QUEUED;
enqueue_task(dst_rq, p, 0);
raw_spin_unlock(&dst_rq->lock);
The profit is that double_rq_lock() is not needed now,
and this may reduce the latencies in some situations.
v2.1: Place task_migrating() into task_rq_lock() and
__task_rq_lock().
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <[email protected]>
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 26aa7bc..00d7bcc 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -333,7 +333,8 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(struct task_struct
*p)
for (;;) {
rq = task_rq(p);
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
- if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
+ if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) &&
+ !task_migrating(p)))
return rq;
raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
}
@@ -352,7 +353,8 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct task_struct *p,
unsigned long *flags)
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
rq = task_rq(p);
raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
- if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
+ if (likely(rq == task_rq(p) &&
+ !task_migrating(p)))
return rq;
raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, *flags);
@@ -1678,7 +1680,7 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state,
int wake_flags)
success = 1; /* we're going to change ->state */
cpu = task_cpu(p);
- if (task_queued(p) && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
+ if (p->on_rq && ttwu_remote(p, wake_flags))
goto stat;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
index e5a9b6d..f6773d7 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ struct rq;
/* .on_rq states of struct task_struct: */
#define ONRQ_QUEUED 1
+#define ONRQ_MIGRATING 2
extern __read_mostly int scheduler_running;
@@ -950,6 +951,11 @@ static inline int task_queued(struct task_struct *p)
return p->on_rq == ONRQ_QUEUED;
}
+static inline int task_migrating(struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return p->on_rq == ONRQ_MIGRATING;
+}
+
#ifndef prepare_arch_switch
# define prepare_arch_switch(next) do { } while (0)
#endif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
