mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org
Cc: vschneid@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, bsegall@google.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH] wait: avoid spurious calls to prepare_to_wait_event() in  ___wait_event()
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:36:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250227233652.142613-1-mjguzik@gmail.com> (raw)

In vast majority of cases the condition determining whether the thread
can proceed is true after the first wake up.

However, even in that there is an additional call to prepare_to_wait_event(),
resulting in a spurious irq + lock trip.

Then it calls into finish_wait() to unlink itself.

pre-check the condition instead after waking up instead.

Stats gathared during a kernel build:
bpftrace -e 'kprobe:prepare_to_wait_event,kprobe:finish_wait \
		 { @[probe] = count(); }'

@[kprobe:finish_wait]: 392483
@[kprobe:prepare_to_wait_event]: 778690

As in calls to prepare_to_wait_event() almost double calls to
finish_wait(). This evens out with the patch.

Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
---

One may worry about using "condition" twice. However, macros leading up
to this one already do it, so it should be fine.

Also one may wonder about fences -- to my understanding going off and on
CPU guarantees a full fence.

 include/linux/wait.h | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/linux/wait.h b/include/linux/wait.h
index 2bdc8f47963b..965a19809c7e 100644
--- a/include/linux/wait.h
+++ b/include/linux/wait.h
@@ -316,6 +316,9 @@ extern void init_wait_entry(struct wait_queue_entry *wq_entry, int flags);
 		}								\
 										\
 		cmd;								\
+										\
+		if (condition)							\
+			break;							\
 	}									\
 	finish_wait(&wq_head, &__wq_entry);					\
 __out:	__ret;									\
-- 
2.43.0


                 reply	other threads:[~2025-02-27 23:37 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=20250227233652.142613-1-mjguzik@gmail.com \
    --to=mjguzik@gmail.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.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®