On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 09:50 +0200, Vitaly Mayatskikh wrote:
> Short-living process returns its timeslice to the parent, this affects
> process that creates a lot of such short-living threads, because its
> not a parent for new threads. Patch fixes this issue and doesn't break
> kabi as does the patch from reporter: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/7/21
> plain text document attachment (2.6.21-timeslice.patch), "proposed
> patch"
> diff -up -bB ./include/linux/sched.h.orig ./include/linux/sched.h
> --- ./include/linux/sched.h.orig 2007-08-21 09:20:22.000000000 +0200
> +++ ./include/linux/sched.h 2007-08-27 10:14:06.000000000 +0200
> @@ -827,7 +827,9 @@ struct task_struct {
>
> unsigned long policy;
> cpumask_t cpus_allowed;
> - unsigned int time_slice, first_time_slice;
> + unsigned int time_slice;
> + /* Pid of creator */
> + unsigned int cpid;
might as well make that pid_t, or maybe even a struct pid* and keep a
reference on it - the struct pid police might have an opinion.
> #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
> struct sched_info sched_info;
> diff -up -bB ./kernel/sched.c.orig ./kernel/sched.c
> --- ./kernel/sched.c.orig 2007-08-21 09:20:22.000000000 +0200
> +++ ./kernel/sched.c 2007-08-27 10:18:44.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1626,9 +1626,9 @@ void fastcall sched_fork(struct task_str
> p->time_slice = (current->time_slice + 1) >> 1;
> /*
> * The remainder of the first timeslice might be recovered by
> - * the parent if the child exits early enough.
> + * the creator (not parent!) if the child exits early enough.
> */
> - p->first_time_slice = 1;
> + p->cpid = current->pid;
> current->time_slice >>= 1;
> p->timestamp = sched_clock();
> if (unlikely(!current->time_slice)) {
> @@ -1728,33 +1728,46 @@ void fastcall wake_up_new_task(struct ta
>
> /*
> * Potentially available exiting-child timeslices are
> - * retrieved here - this way the parent does not get
> + * retrieved here - this way the creator does not get
> * penalized for creating too many threads.
> *
> * (this cannot be used to 'generate' timeslices
> * artificially, because any timeslice recovered here
> - * was given away by the parent in the first place.)
> + * was given away by the creator in the first place.)
> */
> void fastcall sched_exit(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> struct rq *rq;
> -
> + struct task_struct* creator = NULL;
> /*
> * If the child was a (relative-) CPU hog then decrease
> - * the sleep_avg of the parent as well.
> + * the sleep_avg of the creator as well.
> */
> - rq = task_rq_lock(p->parent, &flags);
> - if (p->first_time_slice && task_cpu(p) == task_cpu(p->parent)) {
> - p->parent->time_slice += p->time_slice;
> - if (unlikely(p->parent->time_slice > task_timeslice(p)))
> - p->parent->time_slice = task_timeslice(p);
> + if (p->cpid) {
> + struct pid *pid = find_get_pid((pid_t)p->cpid);
> + if (pid) {
> + creator = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> + put_pid(pid);
> }
> - if (p->sleep_avg < p->parent->sleep_avg)
> - p->parent->sleep_avg = p->parent->sleep_avg /
> +
> + if (creator) {
> + if (task_cpu(p) == task_cpu(creator)) {
> + rq = task_rq_lock(creator, &flags);
> +
> + creator->time_slice += p->time_slice;
> + if (unlikely(creator->time_slice > task_timeslice(p)))
> + creator->time_slice = task_timeslice(p);
> +
> + if (p->sleep_avg < creator->sleep_avg)
> + creator->sleep_avg = creator->sleep_avg /
> (EXIT_WEIGHT + 1) * EXIT_WEIGHT + p->sleep_avg /
> (EXIT_WEIGHT + 1);
> task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
> + }
> + put_task_struct(creator);
> + }
> + }
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -3153,7 +3166,7 @@ static void task_running_tick(struct rq
> */
> if ((p->policy == SCHED_RR) && !--p->time_slice) {
> p->time_slice = task_timeslice(p);
> - p->first_time_slice = 0;
> + p->cpid = 0;
> set_tsk_need_resched(p);
>
> /* put it at the end of the queue: */
> @@ -3166,7 +3179,7 @@ static void task_running_tick(struct rq
> set_tsk_need_resched(p);
> p->prio = effective_prio(p);
> p->time_slice = task_timeslice(p);
> - p->first_time_slice = 0;
> + p->cpid = 0;
>
> if (!rq->expired_timestamp)
> rq->expired_timestamp = jiffies;
Other than that it looks good, pretty much what I suggested :-)
-
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]
