From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To: Wang You <wangyoua@uniontech.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wang You <wangyoua@uniontech.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/wait: Determine whether the wait queue is empty before waking up
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 18:09:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xhsmhfs6wy5db.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230609053812.10230-1-wangyoua@uniontech.com>
On 09/06/23 13:38, Wang You wrote:
> When we did some benchmark tests (such as pipe tests), we found
> that the wake behavior was still triggered when the wait queue
> was empty, even though it would exit later.
>
> This processing consumes some unnecessary resources. Can we
> determine at the beginning of the wake up whether there are
> elements in the queue that need to be awakened? I think this
> judgment is probably good for performance and should be safe.
>
> Looking forward to your reply, thank you.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang You <wangyoua@uniontech.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/wait.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/wait.c b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> index 133b74730738..17011780aa21 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> @@ -205,6 +205,9 @@ void __wake_up_sync_key(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, unsigned int mode,
> if (unlikely(!wq_head))
> return;
>
> + if (unlikely(!wq_has_sleeper(wq_head)))
> + return;
> +
Hm so I suppose that if we end up in wake_up*() then the update of the wait
condition has been done (so this shouldn't lead to missed wakeups), but
that still means an extra smp_mb() before grabbing the wq_head->lock.
I'd suggest benchmarking the change, this is going to cause unwanted
overhead when dealing with busy queues, and I'm not sure it's saving much
vs grabbing wq_head->lock before noticing the list is empty.
> __wake_up_common_lock(wq_head, mode, 1, WF_SYNC, key);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_sync_key);
> --
> 2.20.1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-12 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-09 5:38 Wang You
2023-06-12 17:09 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
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=xhsmhfs6wy5db.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb \
--to=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.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=wangyoua@uniontech.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®