From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched,fair: skip newidle_balance if a wakeup is pending
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:02:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YH1VUETp9swK4Y6T@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210418221751.7edfc03b@imladris.surriel.com>
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:17:51PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The try_to_wake_up function has an optimization where it can queue
> a task for wakeup on its previous CPU, if the task is still in the
> middle of going to sleep inside schedule().
>
> Once schedule() re-enables IRQs, the task will be woken up with an
> IPI, and placed back on the runqueue.
>
> If we have such a wakeup pending, there is no need to search other
> CPUs for runnable tasks. Just skip (or bail out early from) newidle
> balancing, and run the just woken up task.
>
> For a memcache like workload test, this reduces total CPU use by
> about 2%, proportionally split between user and system time,
> and p99 and p95 application response time by 2-3% on average.
> The schedstats run_delay number shows a similar improvement.
Nice.
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 69680158963f..19a92c48939f 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -7163,6 +7163,14 @@ done: __maybe_unused;
> if (!rf)
> return NULL;
>
> + /*
> + * We have a woken up task pending here. No need to search for ones
> + * elsewhere. This task will be enqueued the moment we unblock irqs
> + * upon exiting the scheduler.
> + */
> + if (rq->ttwu_pending)
> + return NULL;
As reported by the robot, that needs an CONFIG_SMP guard of sorts,
#ifdef might work I suppose.
> new_tasks = newidle_balance(rq, rf);
>
> /*
> @@ -10661,7 +10669,8 @@ static int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
> * Stop searching for tasks to pull if there are
> * now runnable tasks on this rq.
> */
> - if (pulled_task || this_rq->nr_running > 0)
> + if (pulled_task || this_rq->nr_running > 0 ||
> + this_rq->ttwu_pending)
Either cino=(0:0 or just bust the limit and make it 84 chars.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-19 10:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-19 2:17 Rik van Riel
2021-04-19 6:28 ` kernel test robot
2021-04-19 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2021-04-19 11:22 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-04-19 16:46 ` Rik van Riel
2021-04-19 12:12 ` 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=YH1VUETp9swK4Y6T@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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®