From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
"Mike Galbraith" <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] sched: fix init NOHZ_IDLE flag
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:52:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtD5rxB29t1mCDBVTVv-RVFv9xMjhRaUeaxCU6znZGPJrw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1366661437.6454.20.camel@laptop>
On 22 April 2013 22:10, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 17:38 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> ---
>> include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index d35d2b6..cde4f7f 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ struct sched_domain {
>> unsigned int wake_idx;
>> unsigned int forkexec_idx;
>> unsigned int smt_gain;
>> + unsigned long nohz_flags; /* NOHZ_IDLE flag status */
>> int flags; /* See SD_* */
>> int level;
>
> There was a 4 byte hole here, I'm assuming you used unsigned long and
> not utilized the hole because of the whole atomic bitop interface
> taking unsigned long?
>
> Bit wasteful but ok..
>
> So we're only pulling NOHZ_IDLE out of nohz_flags()? Should we then not
> also amend the rq_nohz_flag_bits enum? And it seems pointless to me to
> set bit 2 our nohz_flags word if all other bits are unused.
Yes, i have been too quick to update the patchset. i'm going to remove
NOHZ_IDLE from the rq_nohz_flag_bits
>
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 7a33e59..09e440f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5394,14 +5394,21 @@ static inline void set_cpu_sd_state_busy(void)
>> {
>> struct sched_domain *sd;
>> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> -
>> - if (!test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu)))
>> - return;
>> - clear_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu));
>> + int first_nohz_idle = 1;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> - for_each_domain(cpu, sd)
>> + for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
>> + if (first_nohz_idle) {
>> + if (!test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags))
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + clear_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags);
>> + first_nohz_idle = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> atomic_inc(&sd->groups->sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
>> + }
>
> the mind boggles... what's wrong with something like:
>
> static inline unsigned long *rq_nohz_flags(int cpu)
> {
> return rcu_dereference(cpu_rq(cpu)->sd)->nohz_flags;
> }
>
> if (!test_bit(0, rq_nohz_flags(cpu)))
> return;
> clear_bit(0, rq_nohz_flags(cpu));
>
AFAICT, if we use different rcu_dereferences for modifying nohz_flags
and for updating the nr_busy_cpus, we open a time window for
desynchronization, isn't it ?
That why i'm doing the update of rq_nohz_flags with the same
rcu_dereference than nr_busy_cpus
>> +unlock:
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> }
>>
>> @@ -5409,14 +5416,21 @@ void set_cpu_sd_state_idle(void)
>> {
>> struct sched_domain *sd;
>> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> -
>> - if (test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu)))
>> - return;
>> - set_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, nohz_flags(cpu));
>> + int first_nohz_idle = 1;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> - for_each_domain(cpu, sd)
>> + for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
>> + if (first_nohz_idle) {
>> + if (test_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags))
>> + goto unlock;
>> +
>> + set_bit(NOHZ_IDLE, &sd->nohz_flags);
>> + first_nohz_idle = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> atomic_dec(&sd->groups->sgp->nr_busy_cpus);
>> + }
>> +unlock:
>
> Same here, .. why on earth do it for every sched_domain for that cpu?
The update of rq_nohz_flags is done only once on the top level
sched_domain and the nr_busy_cpus is updated on each sched_domain
level in order to have a quick access to the number of busy cpu when
we check for the need to kick an idle load balance
>
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> }
>>
>
> And since its now only a single bit in a single word, we can easily
> change it to something like:
>
> if (*rq_nohz_idle(cpu))
> return;
> xchg(rq_nohz_idle(cpu), 1); /* set; use 0 for clear */
>
> which drops the unsigned long nonsense..
that's fair. i'm going to use xchg instead of atomic
>
> Or am I completely missing something obvious here?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-23 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-22 15:38 Vincent Guittot
2013-04-22 20:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-23 7:52 ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2013-04-23 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-23 9:01 ` Vincent Guittot
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=CAKfTPtD5rxB29t1mCDBVTVv-RVFv9xMjhRaUeaxCU6znZGPJrw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.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®