On 11/27/2012 07:34 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-27 at 16:00 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
On 11/26/2012 07:05 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:37:54PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In case of undercomitted scenarios, especially in large guests
yield_to overhead is significantly high. when run queue length of
source and target is one, take an opportunity to bail out and return
-ESRCH. This return condition can be further exploited to quickly come
out of PLE handler.
(History: Raghavendra initially worked on break out of kvm ple handler upon
seeing source runqueue length = 1, but it had to export rq length).
Peter came up with the elegant idea of return -ESRCH in scheduler core.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Raghavendra, Checking the rq length of target vcpu condition added.(thanks Avi)
Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 2d8927f..fc219a5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4289,7 +4289,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
* It's the caller's job to ensure that the target task struct
* can't go away on us before we can do any checks.
*
- * Returns true if we indeed boosted the target task.
+ * Returns:
+ * true (>0) if we indeed boosted the target task.
+ * false (0) if we failed to boost the target.
+ * -ESRCH if there's no task to yield to.
*/
bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
{
@@ -4303,6 +4306,15 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt)
again:
p_rq = task_rq(p);
+ /*
+ * If we're the only runnable task on the rq and target rq also
+ * has only one task, there's absolutely no point in yielding.
+ */
+ if (rq->nr_running == 1 && p_rq->nr_running == 1) {
+ yielded = -ESRCH;
+ goto out_irq;
+ }
+
double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
while (task_rq(p) != p_rq) {
double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
@@ -4310,13 +4322,13 @@ again:
}
if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
yielded = curr->sched_class->yield_to_task(rq, p, preempt);
if (yielded) {
@@ -4329,11 +4341,12 @@ again:
resched_task(p_rq->curr);
}
-out:
+out_unlock:
double_rq_unlock(rq, p_rq);
+out_irq:
local_irq_restore(flags);
- if (yielded)
+ if (yielded > 0)
schedule();
return yielded;
Acked-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you Drew.
Marcelo Gleb.. Please let me know if you have comments / concerns on the
patches..
Andrew, Vinod, IMO, the patch set looks good for undercommit scenarios
especially for large guests where we do have overhead of vcpu iteration
of ple handler..
I agree, looks fine for undercommit scenarios. I do wonder what happens
with 1.5x overcommit, where we might see 1/2 the host cpus with runqueue
of 2 and 1/2 of the host cpus with a runqueue of 1. Even with this
change that scenario still might be fine, but it would be nice to see a
comparison.
Hi Andrew, yes thanks for pointing out 1.5x case which should have
theoretical worst case..
I tried with 2 24 vcpu guests and the same 32 core machine.. Here is
the result..
Ebizzy (rec/sec higher is better)
x base
+ patched
N Avg Stddev
x 10 2688.6 347.55917
+ 10 2707.6 260.93728
improvement 0.706%
dbench (Throughput MB/sec higher is better)
x base
+ patched
N Avg Stddev
x 10 3164.712 140.24468
+ 10 3244.021 185.92434
Improvement 2.5%
So there is no significant improvement / degradation seen in
1.5x.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
