Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
On 07/27/2012 04:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 09:47 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> From 610515185d8a98c14c7c339c25381bc96cd99d93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Alex Shi
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:55:34 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and
>> code clean up
>>
>> Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement
>> code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical.
>> like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect
>> of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here.
>>
>> So, clean up the obsolete code and some other unnecessary code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
>
> I think your code leaves an unused definition of SD_PREFER_LOCAL around.
>
I removed the SD_PREFER_LOCAL. and resend. :)
>From be2e235ab4626246766b220908a3fc714809d8e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:55:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 3/7] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and
code clean up
Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement
code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical.
like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect
of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here.
So, clean up the obsolete code, includes SD_PREFER_LOCAL.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
include/linux/sched.h|1 -
include/linux/topology.h |2 --
kernel/sched/core.c |1 -
kernel/sched/fair.c | 34 +++---
4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index c147e70..96e026c 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -868,7 +868,6 @@ enum cpu_idle_type {
#define SD_BALANCE_FORK0x0008 /* Balance on fork, clone */
#define SD_BALANCE_WAKE0x0010 /* Balance on wakeup */
#define SD_WAKE_AFFINE 0x0020 /* Wake task to waking CPU */
-#define SD_PREFER_LOCAL0x0040 /* Prefer to keep tasks local
to this domain */
#define SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER 0x0080 /* Domain members share cpu power */
#define SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES 0x0200 /* Domain members share cpu pkg
resources */
#define SD_SERIALIZE 0x0400 /* Only a single load balancing
instance */
diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
index fec12d6..d3cf0d6 100644
--- a/include/linux/topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/topology.h
@@ -129,7 +129,6 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK \
| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE \
| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE \
- | 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL \
| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER \
| 1*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES \
| 0*SD_SERIALIZE\
@@ -160,7 +159,6 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK \
| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE \
| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE \
- | 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL \
| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER \
| 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES \
| 0*SD_SERIALIZE\
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 82ad284..7dbb6c1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -6582,7 +6582,6 @@ sd_numa_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int
cpu)
| 0*SD_BALANCE_FORK
| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE
| 0*SD_WAKE_AFFINE
- | 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL
| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER
| 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
| 1*SD_SERIALIZE
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 84fa9c5..61e399c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2686,7 +2686,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
int new_cpu = cpu;
int want_affine = 0;
- int want_sd = 1;
int sync = wake_flags & WF_SYNC;
if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
@@ -2704,48 +2703,21 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
continue;
/*
-* If power savings logic is enabled for a domain, see if we
-* are not overloaded, if so, don't
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
On 07/27/2012 04:32 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 09:47 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> From 610515185d8a98c14c7c339c25381bc96cd99d93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Alex Shi
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:55:34 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and
>> code clean up
>>
>> Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement
>> code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical.
>> like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect
>> of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here.
>>
>> So, clean up the obsolete code and some other unnecessary code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
>
> I think your code leaves an unused definition of SD_PREFER_LOCAL around.
I had thought it maybe useful in power saving recovery. But you are right.
It is better to remove them and alignment code now.
===
>From 5eba8f31207e54ca6cbd481cfc23f149a0554b2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:55:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and
code clean up
Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement
code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical.
like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect
of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here.
So, clean up the obsolete code, like SD_PREFER_LOCAL.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
include/linux/sched.h|1 -
include/linux/topology.h |2 --
kernel/sched/core.c |1 -
kernel/sched/fair.c | 32 +++-
4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index d77877d..1a1e3e45 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -855,7 +855,6 @@ enum cpu_idle_type {
#define SD_BALANCE_FORK0x0008 /* Balance on fork, clone */
#define SD_BALANCE_WAKE0x0010 /* Balance on wakeup */
#define SD_WAKE_AFFINE 0x0020 /* Wake task to waking CPU */
-#define SD_PREFER_LOCAL0x0040 /* Prefer to keep tasks local
to this domain */
#define SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER 0x0080 /* Domain members share cpu power */
#define SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES 0x0200 /* Domain members share cpu pkg
resources */
#define SD_SERIALIZE 0x0400 /* Only a single load balancing
instance */
diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
index fec12d6..d3cf0d6 100644
--- a/include/linux/topology.h
+++ b/include/linux/topology.h
@@ -129,7 +129,6 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK \
| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE \
| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE \
- | 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL \
| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER \
| 1*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES \
| 0*SD_SERIALIZE\
@@ -160,7 +159,6 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK \
| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE \
| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE \
- | 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL \
| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER \
| 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES \
| 0*SD_SERIALIZE\
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 82ad284..7dbb6c1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -6582,7 +6582,6 @@ sd_numa_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int
cpu)
| 0*SD_BALANCE_FORK
| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE
| 0*SD_WAKE_AFFINE
- | 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL
| 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER
| 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES
| 1*SD_SERIALIZE
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 22321db..53fd8db 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2686,7 +2686,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
int new_cpu = cpu;
int want_affine = 0;
- int want_sd = 1;
int sync = wake_flags & WF_SYNC;
if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
@@ -2704,48 +2703,23 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
continue;
/*
-* If power savings logic is enab
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 09:47 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > From 610515185d8a98c14c7c339c25381bc96cd99d93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Alex Shi > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:55:34 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and > code clean up > > Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement > code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical. > like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect > of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here. > > So, clean up the obsolete code and some other unnecessary code. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi I think your code leaves an unused definition of SD_PREFER_LOCAL around. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 09:47 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 05:37 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 13:27 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >
> >>if (affine_sd) {
> >> - if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> >> + if (wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> >>prev_cpu = cpu;
> >>
> >>new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
> >
> > Hm, if cpu == prev_cpu, asking wake_affine() if it's ok to put wakee
> > back where it came from is wasted cycles.. that's where the task is
> > headed regardless of reply.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
>
>
>
>
> Sure. I modified the patch as below:
(dang, plain text can't make upside down ack;)
> ===
> From 610515185d8a98c14c7c339c25381bc96cd99d93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Shi
> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:55:34 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and
> code clean up
>
> Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement
> code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical.
> like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect
> of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here.
>
> So, clean up the obsolete code and some other unnecessary code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 32 +++-
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 22321db..53fd8db 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -2686,7 +2686,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
> int wake_flags)
> int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
> int new_cpu = cpu;
> int want_affine = 0;
> - int want_sd = 1;
> int sync = wake_flags & WF_SYNC;
>
> if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
> @@ -2704,48 +2703,23 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int
> sd_flag, int wake_flags)
> continue;
>
> /*
> - * If power savings logic is enabled for a domain, see if we
> - * are not overloaded, if so, don't balance wider.
> - */
> - if (tmp->flags & (SD_PREFER_LOCAL)) {
> - unsigned long power = 0;
> - unsigned long nr_running = 0;
> - unsigned long capacity;
> - int i;
> -
> - for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(tmp)) {
> - power += power_of(i);
> - nr_running += cpu_rq(i)->cfs.nr_running;
> - }
> -
> - capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(power, SCHED_POWER_SCALE);
> -
> - if (nr_running < capacity)
> - want_sd = 0;
> - }
> -
> - /*
>* If both cpu and prev_cpu are part of this domain,
>* cpu is a valid SD_WAKE_AFFINE target.
>*/
> if (want_affine && (tmp->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) &&
> cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(tmp))) {
> affine_sd = tmp;
> - want_affine = 0;
> - }
> -
> - if (!want_sd && !want_affine)
> break;
> + }
>
> if (!(tmp->flags & sd_flag))
> continue;
>
> - if (want_sd)
> - sd = tmp;
> + sd = tmp;
> }
>
> if (affine_sd) {
> - if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> + if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> prev_cpu = cpu;
>
> new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
On 07/26/2012 05:37 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 13:27 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> if (affine_sd) {
>> -if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
>> +if (wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
>> prev_cpu = cpu;
>>
>> new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
>
> Hm, if cpu == prev_cpu, asking wake_affine() if it's ok to put wakee
> back where it came from is wasted cycles.. that's where the task is
> headed regardless of reply.
>
> -Mike
>
Sure. I modified the patch as below:
===
>From 610515185d8a98c14c7c339c25381bc96cd99d93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:55:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and
code clean up
Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement
code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical.
like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect
of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here.
So, clean up the obsolete code and some other unnecessary code.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 32 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 22321db..53fd8db 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2686,7 +2686,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
int new_cpu = cpu;
int want_affine = 0;
- int want_sd = 1;
int sync = wake_flags & WF_SYNC;
if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
@@ -2704,48 +2703,23 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
continue;
/*
-* If power savings logic is enabled for a domain, see if we
-* are not overloaded, if so, don't balance wider.
-*/
- if (tmp->flags & (SD_PREFER_LOCAL)) {
- unsigned long power = 0;
- unsigned long nr_running = 0;
- unsigned long capacity;
- int i;
-
- for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(tmp)) {
- power += power_of(i);
- nr_running += cpu_rq(i)->cfs.nr_running;
- }
-
- capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(power, SCHED_POWER_SCALE);
-
- if (nr_running < capacity)
- want_sd = 0;
- }
-
- /*
* If both cpu and prev_cpu are part of this domain,
* cpu is a valid SD_WAKE_AFFINE target.
*/
if (want_affine && (tmp->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) &&
cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(tmp))) {
affine_sd = tmp;
- want_affine = 0;
- }
-
- if (!want_sd && !want_affine)
break;
+ }
if (!(tmp->flags & sd_flag))
continue;
- if (want_sd)
- sd = tmp;
+ sd = tmp;
}
if (affine_sd) {
- if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
+ if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
prev_cpu = cpu;
new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
--
1.7.5.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
On 07/26/2012 05:37 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 13:27 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> if (affine_sd) {
>> -if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
>> +if (wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
>> prev_cpu = cpu;
>>
>> new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
>
> Hm, if cpu == prev_cpu, asking wake_affine() if it's ok to put wakee
> back where it came from is wasted cycles.. that's where the task is
> headed regardless of reply.
Sure. You'r right.
>
> -Mike
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 13:27 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> if (affine_sd) {
> - if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> + if (wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> prev_cpu = cpu;
>
> new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
Hm, if cpu == prev_cpu, asking wake_affine() if it's ok to put wakee
back where it came from is wasted cycles.. that's where the task is
headed regardless of reply.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 1/2] sched: recover SD_WAKE_AFFINE in select_task_rq_fair and code clean up
Since power saving code was removed from sched now, the implement
code is out of service in this function, and even pollute other logical.
like, 'want_sd' never has chance to be set '0', that remove the effect
of SD_WAKE_AFFINE here.
So, clean up the obsolete code and some other unnecessary code.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 32 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 22321db..8a1db69 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -2686,7 +2686,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p);
int new_cpu = cpu;
int want_affine = 0;
- int want_sd = 1;
int sync = wake_flags & WF_SYNC;
if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1)
@@ -2704,48 +2703,23 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag,
int wake_flags)
continue;
/*
-* If power savings logic is enabled for a domain, see if we
-* are not overloaded, if so, don't balance wider.
-*/
- if (tmp->flags & (SD_PREFER_LOCAL)) {
- unsigned long power = 0;
- unsigned long nr_running = 0;
- unsigned long capacity;
- int i;
-
- for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(tmp)) {
- power += power_of(i);
- nr_running += cpu_rq(i)->cfs.nr_running;
- }
-
- capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(power, SCHED_POWER_SCALE);
-
- if (nr_running < capacity)
- want_sd = 0;
- }
-
- /*
* If both cpu and prev_cpu are part of this domain,
* cpu is a valid SD_WAKE_AFFINE target.
*/
if (want_affine && (tmp->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) &&
cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(tmp))) {
affine_sd = tmp;
- want_affine = 0;
- }
-
- if (!want_sd && !want_affine)
break;
+ }
if (!(tmp->flags & sd_flag))
continue;
- if (want_sd)
- sd = tmp;
+ sd = tmp;
}
if (affine_sd) {
- if (cpu == prev_cpu || wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
+ if (wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
prev_cpu = cpu;
new_cpu = select_idle_sibling(p, prev_cpu);
--
1.7.5.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
