From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Vitaly Mayatskikh <vmayatsk@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Pavel Emelianov <xemul@openvz.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.21] Return available first timeslice to the creator, not parent
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:49:31 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070830094931.GB316@tv-sign.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1188465056.6112.30.camel@twins>
On 08/30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 09:50 +0200, Vitaly Mayatskikh wrote:
> > Short-living process returns its timeslice to the parent, this affects
> > process that creates a lot of such short-living threads, because its
> > not a parent for new threads. Patch fixes this issue and doesn't break
> > kabi as does the patch from reporter: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/7/21
>
> > plain text document attachment (2.6.21-timeslice.patch), "proposed
> > patch"
> > diff -up -bB ./include/linux/sched.h.orig ./include/linux/sched.h
> > --- ./include/linux/sched.h.orig 2007-08-21 09:20:22.000000000 +0200
> > +++ ./include/linux/sched.h 2007-08-27 10:14:06.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -827,7 +827,9 @@ struct task_struct {
> >
> > unsigned long policy;
> > cpumask_t cpus_allowed;
> > - unsigned int time_slice, first_time_slice;
> > + unsigned int time_slice;
> > + /* Pid of creator */
> > + unsigned int cpid;
>
> might as well make that pid_t, or maybe even a struct pid* and keep a
> reference on it - the struct pid police might have an opinion.
I agree, "struct pid*" is better, because
1. we don't need a costly find_pid() in sched_exit()
2. we don't suffer from pid re-use problem
> > void fastcall sched_exit(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > struct rq *rq;
> > -
> > + struct task_struct* creator = NULL;
> > /*
> > * If the child was a (relative-) CPU hog then decrease
> > - * the sleep_avg of the parent as well.
> > + * the sleep_avg of the creator as well.
> > */
> > - rq = task_rq_lock(p->parent, &flags);
> > - if (p->first_time_slice && task_cpu(p) == task_cpu(p->parent)) {
> > - p->parent->time_slice += p->time_slice;
> > - if (unlikely(p->parent->time_slice > task_timeslice(p)))
> > - p->parent->time_slice = task_timeslice(p);
> > + if (p->cpid) {
> > + struct pid *pid = find_get_pid((pid_t)p->cpid);
> > + if (pid) {
> > + creator = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> > + put_pid(pid);
sched_exit() was removed in 2.6.23-rc.
If you are going to re-introduce this logic, please don't do sched_exit()
from release_task(). It was done this way just because we can't access
->parent after release_task(). But release_task() is called either too
early, or too late for timeslice accounting, depending on ->exit_signal == -1.
I'd suggest to do this in do_exit(), before the last schedule(). Without
write_unlock_irq() the code above needs a couple of rcu_read_lock()'s.
I am not sure Ingo will like this change though...
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-30 9:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-30 7:50 Vitaly Mayatskikh
2007-08-30 8:37 ` Michal Schmidt
2007-08-30 9:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-30 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-30 9:48 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2007-08-30 9:49 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2007-08-30 9:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-08-30 10:09 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20070830094931.GB316@tv-sign.ru \
--to=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vmayatsk@redhat.com \
--cc=xemul@openvz.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®