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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
