From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched_rt: Removes extra checking for nr_cpus_allowed when calling find_lowest_rq
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:01:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1287493260.16971.364.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CBD5D680200005A0007492F@soto.provo.novell.com>
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 06:57 -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> On 10/19/2010 at 07:02 AM, in message <1287486167.1994.1.camel@twins>, Peter
> Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:57 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> --- linus-rc8/kernel/sched_rt.c 2010-10-15 05:26:43.000000000 +0600
> >> +++ rakib-rc8/kernel/sched_rt.c 2010-10-19 16:22:30.000000000 +0600
> >> @@ -971,8 +971,7 @@ select_task_rq_rt(struct rq *rq, struct
> >> * that is just being woken and probably will have
> >> * cold cache anyway.
> >> */
> >> - if (unlikely(rt_task(rq->curr)) &&
> >> - (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)) {
>
> I think the motivation here was that checking nr_cpus_allowed is far
> cheaper than taking the hit on a function call in this particularly
> hot path. As Steven points out in a follow-up reply, the function
> call has additional overhead before the equivalent check is made
> again. We could possibly optimize this with some of the suggestions
> he made, but I am not sure if it is worth it (alone) as the call
> overhead would still be present. OTOH, the cases where
> nr_cpus_allowed <= 1 are probably rare in the grand scheme of things.
>
> My opinion is the check should probably remain (if but perhaps with a
> comment to explain its existence) unless someone (Rakib, hint hint) is
> willing to do some benchmarking to demonstrate that it doesn't
> actually have any positive impact. It probably also makes sense to
> take Steve's suggested changes to improve the places that use the
> function without external optimization.
Yeah, it probably is not worth removing the check here, as a function
call will add overhead.
And do not think that it is a unlikely case to have an RT task pinned to
a CPU. In true RT systems, that should be the norm. Any benchmark should
test the impact on tasks that are pinned to a CPU, not a general
scenario.
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-19 13:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-19 10:57 Rakib Mullick
2010-10-19 11:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-19 11:12 ` Rakib Mullick
2010-10-19 12:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-10-19 12:57 ` Gregory Haskins
2010-10-19 13:01 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2010-10-19 13:07 ` Gregory Haskins
2010-10-19 14:40 ` Rakib Mullick
2010-10-20 4:13 ` Rakib Mullick
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1287493260.16971.364.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rakib.mullick@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®