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®