From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
<tkhai@yandex.ru>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] sched: Add on_rq states and remove several double rq locks
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:30:01 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1406028601.3526.18.camel@tkhai> (raw)
This series aims to get rid of some places where locks of two RQs are held
at the same time.
Patch [1/5] is a preparation/cleanup. It replaces old (.on_rq == 1) with new
(.on_rq == ONRQ_QUEUED) everywhere. No functional changes.
Patch [2/5] is main in the series. It introduces new state: ONRQ_MIGRATING
and teaches scheduler to understand it (we need a little changes predominantly
in try_to_wake_up()). This will be used in the following way:
(we are changing task's rq)
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);
Patches [3-5/5] remove double locks and use new ONRQ_MIGRATING state.
They allow unlocked using of 3-4 function, which looks safe for me.
The series doesn't add any overhead, and it shouldn't worsen performance,
I think. It improves granularity, and it's possible to imagine situations,
which will be happier without double rq lock.
I tested the reliability for 2-3 week (in sum, with breaks) on my work laptop,
and bugs did not happen. Looks like, it's ready for people's review.
Commentaries are welcome. Thanks!
---
Kirill Tkhai (5):
sched: Wrapper for checking task_struct's .on_rq
sched: Teach scheduler to understand ONRQ_MIGRATING state
sched: Remove double_rq_lock() from __migrate_task()
sched/fair: Remove double_lock_balance() from active_load_balance_cpu_stop()
sched/fair: Remove double_lock_balance() from load_balance()
kernel/sched/core.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++-------------
kernel/sched/deadline.c | 14 ++--
kernel/sched/fair.c | 156 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
kernel/sched/rt.c | 16 ++---
kernel/sched/sched.h | 8 ++
kernel/sched/stop_task.c | 2 -
6 files changed, 187 insertions(+), 118 deletions(-)
--
Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>
reply other threads:[~2014-07-22 11:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1406028601.3526.18.camel@tkhai \
--to=ktkhai@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tkhai@yandex.ru \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@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
Powered by JetHome