mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Skip double execution of pick_next_task_fair
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:06:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1398359167.2970.80.camel@schen9-DESK> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140424100047.GP11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:31:57PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > The current code will call pick_next_task_fair a second time
> > in the slow path if we did not pull any task in our first try.
> > This is really unnecessary as we already know no task can
> > be pulled and it doubles the delay for the cpu to enter idle.
> > 
> > We instrumented some network workloads and that saw that
> > pick_next_task_fair is frequently called twice before a cpu enters idle.
> > The call to pick_next_task_fair can add
> > non trivial latency as it calls load_balance which runs find_busiest_group
> > on an hierarchy of sched domains spanning the cpus for a large system.  For
> > some 4 socket systems, we saw almost 0.25 msec spent per call
> > of pick_next_task_fair before a cpu can be idled.
> > 
> > This patch skips pick_next_task_fair in the slow path if it
> > has already been invoked.
> 
> How about something like so?

Yes, this version is more concise.

> 
> Its a little more contained.
> 
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2636,8 +2636,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
>  	if (likely(prev->sched_class == class &&
>  		   rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.h_nr_running)) {
>  		p = fair_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev);
> -		if (likely(p && p != RETRY_TASK))
> -			return p;
> +		if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK))
> +			goto again;
> +
> +		/* assumes fair_sched_class->next == idle_sched_class */
> +		if (unlikely(!p))
> +			p = pick_next_task_idle(rq, prev);
Should be 
			  p = idle_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev);
> +
> +		return p;
>  	}
>  
>  again:

I'll respin the patch with these changes.

Thanks.

Tim



  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-24 17:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-23 22:31 Tim Chen
2014-04-24 10:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-24 17:06   ` Tim Chen [this message]
2014-04-24 17:16     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-08 10:42   ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Skip double execution of pick_next_task_fair() tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra

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=1398359167.2970.80.camel@schen9-DESK \
    --to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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®