* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> ok, we can do that.
>
> the O(1) implementation of yield() was pretty arbitrary: it did not
> move it last on the same priority level - it only did it within the
> active array. So expired tasks (such as CPU hogs) would come _after_ a
> yield()-ing task.
>
> so the yield() implementation was so much tied to the data structures
> of the O(1) scheduler that it was impossible to fully emulate it in
> CFS.
>
> in CFS we dont have a per-nice-level rbtree, so we cannot move it dead
> last within the same priority group - but we can move it dead last in
> the whole tree. (then they'd be put even after nice +19 tasks.) People
> might complain about _that_.
>
> another practical problem is that this will break certain desktop apps
> that do calls to yield() [some firefox plugins do that, some 3D apps
> do that, etc.] but they dont expect to be moved 'very late' into the
> queue - they expect the O(1) scheduler's behavior of being delayed "a
> bit". (That's why i added the yield-granularity tunable.)
>
> we can make yield super-agressive, that is pretty much the only sane
> (because well-defined) thing to do (besides turning yield into a NOP),
> but there will be lots of regression reports about lost interactivity
> during load. sched_yield() is a mortally broken API. "fix the app"
> would be the answer, but still there will be lots of complaints.
find below the fix that puts yielding tasks to the rightmost position in
the rbtree. I have not tested it extensively yet, but it appears to work
on x86. (i tested yield using interactive tasks and they get hurt now
under load - but this would be expected.)
Ingo
---------------------->
Subject: sched: make yield more agressive
From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
make sys_sched_yield() more agressive, by moving the yielding task
to the last position in the rbtree.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
---
kernel/sched.c | 5 +----
kernel/sched_fair.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Index: linux/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4550,10 +4550,7 @@ asmlinkage long sys_sched_yield(void)
struct rq *rq = this_rq_lock();
schedstat_inc(rq, yld_cnt);
- if (unlikely(rq->nr_running == 1))
- schedstat_inc(rq, yld_act_empty);
- else
- current->sched_class->yield_task(rq, current);
+ current->sched_class->yield_task(rq, current);
/*
* Since we are going to call schedule() anyway, there's
Index: linux/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -902,14 +902,43 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq
static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
{
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p);
+ struct rb_node **link = &cfs_rq->tasks_timeline.rb_node;
+ struct sched_entity *rightmost, *se = &p->se;
+ struct rb_node *parent;
- __update_rq_clock(rq);
/*
- * Dequeue and enqueue the task to update its
- * position within the tree:
+ * Are we the only task in the tree?
*/
- dequeue_entity(cfs_rq, &p->se, 0);
- enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, &p->se, 0);
+ if (unlikely(cfs_rq->nr_running == 1))
+ return;
+ /*
+ * Find the rightmost entry in the rbtree:
+ */
+ do {
+ parent = *link;
+ link = &parent->rb_right;
+ } while (*link);
+
+ rightmost = rb_entry(parent, struct sched_entity, run_node);
+ /*
+ * Already in the rightmost position?
+ */
+ if (unlikely(rightmost == se))
+ return;
+
+ /*
+ * Minimally necessary key value to be last in the tree:
+ */
+ se->fair_key = rightmost->fair_key + 1;
+
+ if (cfs_rq->rb_leftmost == &se->run_node)
+ cfs_rq->rb_leftmost = rb_next(&se->run_node);
+ /*
+ * Relink the task to the rightmost position:
+ */
+ rb_erase(&se->run_node, &cfs_rq->tasks_timeline);
+ rb_link_node(&se->run_node, parent, link);
+ rb_insert_color(&se->run_node, &cfs_rq->tasks_timeline);
}
/*
-
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]