RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention

["Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>]

Nick Piggin wrote on Friday, June 02, 2006 1:56 AM
> Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> 
> > Ha, you beat me by one minute. It did cross my mind to use try lock there as
> > well, take a look at my version, I think I have a better inner loop.
> 
> Actually you *have* to use trylocks I think, because the current runqueue
> is already locked.
> 
> And why do we lock all siblings in the other case, for that matter? (not
> that it makes much difference except on niagara today).
> 
> Rolled up patch with everyone's changes attached.


OK, it's down to nit-picking now:

Remove this_rq argument from wake_sleeping_dependent() since it is not
used.  Nick, you had that in your earlier version, but it got lost in
the woods.

I don't like cpumask being declared on the stack.  Here is my version
to rid it out in wake_sleeping_dependent() and dependent_sleeper().

- Ken


--- ./kernel/sched.c.orig	2006-06-02 03:20:40.000000000 -0700
+++ ./kernel/sched.c	2006-06-02 03:20:59.000000000 -0700
@@ -2714,10 +2714,9 @@ static inline void wakeup_busy_runqueue(
 /*
  * Called with interrupts disabled and this_rq's runqueue locked.
  */
-static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
+static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu)
 {
 	struct sched_domain *tmp, *sd = NULL;
-	cpumask_t sibling_map;
 	int i;
 
 	for_each_domain(this_cpu, tmp)
@@ -2728,10 +2727,11 @@ static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int 
 	if (!sd)
 		return;
 
-	sibling_map = sd->span;
-	cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map);
-	for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) {
+	for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span) {
 		runqueue_t *smt_rq = cpu_rq(i);
+
+		if (i == this_cpu)
+			continue;
 		if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&smt_rq->lock)))
 			continue;
 
@@ -2761,7 +2761,6 @@ static int dependent_sleeper(int this_cp
 	struct task_struct *p)
 {
 	struct sched_domain *tmp, *sd = NULL;
-	cpumask_t sibling_map;
 	int ret = 0, i;
 
 	for_each_domain(this_cpu, tmp)
@@ -2772,12 +2771,13 @@ static int dependent_sleeper(int this_cp
 	if (!sd)
 		return 0;
 
-	sibling_map = sd->span;
-	cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map);
-	for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) {
+	for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span) {
 		runqueue_t *smt_rq;
 		task_t *smt_curr;
 
+		if (i == this_cpu)
+			continue;
+
 		smt_rq = cpu_rq(i);
 		if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&smt_rq->lock)))
 			continue;
@@ -2842,7 +2842,7 @@ check_smt_task:
 	return ret;
 }
 #else
-static inline void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
+static inline void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu)
 {
 }
 
@@ -2973,7 +2973,7 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
 		if (!rq->nr_running) {
 			next = rq->idle;
 			rq->expired_timestamp = 0;
-			wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu, rq);
+			wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu);
 			goto switch_tasks;
 		}
 	}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/