The patch titled
sched: fix smt nice lock contention and optimization
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
sched-fix-smt-nice-lock-contention-and-optimization.patch
See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
out what to do about this
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: sched: fix smt nice lock contention and optimization
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Initial report and lock contention fix from Chris Mason:
Recent benchmarks showed some performance regressions between 2.6.16 and
2.6.5. We tracked down one of the regressions to lock contention in
schedule heavy workloads (~70,000 context switches per second)
kernel/sched.c:dependent_sleeper() was responsible for most of the lock
contention, hammering on the run queue locks. The patch below is more of a
discussion point than a suggested fix (although it does reduce lock
contention significantly). The dependent_sleeper code looks very expensive
to me, especially for using a spinlock to bounce control between two
different siblings in the same cpu.
It is further optimized:
* perform dependent_sleeper check after next task is determined
* convert wake_sleeping_dependent to use trylock
* skip smt runqueue check if trylock fails
* optimize double_rq_lock now that smt nice is converted to trylock
* early exit in searching first SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER domain
* speedup fast path of dependent_sleeper
Signed-off-by: Ken Chen <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/sched.c | 170 +++++++++++++----------------------------------
1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 120 deletions(-)
diff -puN kernel/sched.c~sched-fix-smt-nice-lock-contention-and-optimization kernel/sched.c
--- devel/kernel/sched.c~sched-fix-smt-nice-lock-contention-and-optimization 2006-06-03 01:04:08.000000000 -0700
+++ devel-akpm/kernel/sched.c 2006-06-03 01:04:08.000000000 -0700
@@ -240,7 +240,6 @@ struct runqueue {
task_t *migration_thread;
struct list_head migration_queue;
- int cpu;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
@@ -1713,9 +1712,6 @@ unsigned long nr_active(void)
/*
* double_rq_lock - safely lock two runqueues
*
- * We must take them in cpu order to match code in
- * dependent_sleeper and wake_dependent_sleeper.
- *
* Note this does not disable interrupts like task_rq_lock,
* you need to do so manually before calling.
*/
@@ -1727,7 +1723,7 @@ static void double_rq_lock(runqueue_t *r
spin_lock(&rq1->lock);
__acquire(rq2->lock); /* Fake it out ;) */
} else {
- if (rq1->cpu < rq2->cpu) {
+ if (rq1 < rq2) {
spin_lock(&rq1->lock);
spin_lock(&rq2->lock);
} else {
@@ -1763,7 +1759,7 @@ static void double_lock_balance(runqueue
__acquires(this_rq->lock)
{
if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&busiest->lock))) {
- if (busiest->cpu < this_rq->cpu) {
+ if (busiest < this_rq) {
spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
spin_lock(&busiest->lock);
spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
@@ -2713,48 +2709,33 @@ static inline void wakeup_busy_runqueue(
resched_task(rq->idle);
}
-static void wake_sleeping_dependent(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
+/*
+ * Called with interrupt disabled and this_rq's runqueue locked.
+ */
+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)
- if (tmp->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER)
+ if (tmp->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER) {
sd = tmp;
-
+ break;
+ }
if (!sd)
return;
- /*
- * Unlock the current runqueue because we have to lock in
- * CPU order to avoid deadlocks. Caller knows that we might
- * unlock. We keep IRQs disabled.
- */
- spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
-
- sibling_map = sd->span;
-
- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
- spin_lock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
- /*
- * We clear this CPU from the mask. This both simplifies the
- * inner loop and keps this_rq locked when we exit:
- */
- 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;
+
wakeup_busy_runqueue(smt_rq);
+ spin_unlock(&smt_rq->lock);
}
-
- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
- spin_unlock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
- /*
- * We exit with this_cpu's rq still held and IRQs
- * still disabled:
- */
}
/*
@@ -2767,52 +2748,44 @@ static inline unsigned long smt_slice(ta
return p->time_slice * (100 - sd->per_cpu_gain) / 100;
}
-static int dependent_sleeper(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
+/*
+ * To minimise lock contention and not have to drop this_rq's runlock we only
+ * trylock the sibling runqueues and bypass those runqueues if we fail to
+ * acquire their lock. As we only trylock the normal locking order does not
+ * need to be obeyed.
+ */
+static int dependent_sleeper(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq, task_t *p)
{
struct sched_domain *tmp, *sd = NULL;
- cpumask_t sibling_map;
- prio_array_t *array;
int ret = 0, i;
- task_t *p;
+
+ /* kernel/rt threads do not participate in dependent sleeping */
+ if (!p->mm || rt_task(p))
+ return 0;
for_each_domain(this_cpu, tmp)
- if (tmp->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER)
+ if (tmp->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER) {
sd = tmp;
-
+ break;
+ }
if (!sd)
return 0;
- /*
- * The same locking rules and details apply as for
- * wake_sleeping_dependent():
- */
- spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
- sibling_map = sd->span;
- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
- spin_lock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
- cpu_clear(this_cpu, sibling_map);
+ for_each_cpu_mask(i, sd->span) {
+ runqueue_t *smt_rq;
+ task_t *smt_curr;
- /*
- * Establish next task to be run - it might have gone away because
- * we released the runqueue lock above:
- */
- if (!this_rq->nr_running)
- goto out_unlock;
- array = this_rq->active;
- if (!array->nr_active)
- array = this_rq->expired;
- BUG_ON(!array->nr_active);
+ if (i == this_cpu)
+ continue;
- p = list_entry(array->queue[sched_find_first_bit(array->bitmap)].next,
- task_t, run_list);
+ smt_rq = cpu_rq(i);
+ if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(&smt_rq->lock)))
+ continue;
- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map) {
- runqueue_t *smt_rq = cpu_rq(i);
- task_t *smt_curr = smt_rq->curr;
+ smt_curr = smt_rq->curr;
- /* Kernel threads do not participate in dependent sleeping */
- if (!p->mm || !smt_curr->mm || rt_task(p))
- goto check_smt_task;
+ if (!smt_curr->mm)
+ goto unlock;
/*
* If a user task with lower static priority than the
@@ -2830,49 +2803,24 @@ static int dependent_sleeper(int this_cp
if ((jiffies % DEF_TIMESLICE) >
(sd->per_cpu_gain * DEF_TIMESLICE / 100))
ret = 1;
- } else
+ } else {
if (smt_curr->static_prio < p->static_prio &&
!TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, smt_rq) &&
smt_slice(smt_curr, sd) > task_timeslice(p))
ret = 1;
-
-check_smt_task:
- if ((!smt_curr->mm && smt_curr != smt_rq->idle) ||
- rt_task(smt_curr))
- continue;
- if (!p->mm) {
- wakeup_busy_runqueue(smt_rq);
- continue;
- }
-
- /*
- * Reschedule a lower priority task on the SMT sibling for
- * it to be put to sleep, or wake it up if it has been put to
- * sleep for priority reasons to see if it should run now.
- */
- if (rt_task(p)) {
- if ((jiffies % DEF_TIMESLICE) >
- (sd->per_cpu_gain * DEF_TIMESLICE / 100))
- resched_task(smt_curr);
- } else {
- if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, smt_rq) &&
- smt_slice(p, sd) > task_timeslice(smt_curr))
- resched_task(smt_curr);
- else
- wakeup_busy_runqueue(smt_rq);
}
+unlock:
+ spin_unlock(&smt_rq->lock);
}
-out_unlock:
- for_each_cpu_mask(i, sibling_map)
- spin_unlock(&cpu_rq(i)->lock);
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)
{
}
-static inline int dependent_sleeper(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq)
+static inline int dependent_sleeper(int this_cpu, runqueue_t *this_rq,
+ task_t *p)
{
return 0;
}
@@ -2994,32 +2942,13 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
cpu = smp_processor_id();
if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) {
-go_idle:
idle_balance(cpu, rq);
if (!rq->nr_running) {
next = rq->idle;
rq->expired_timestamp = 0;
- wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu, rq);
- /*
- * wake_sleeping_dependent() might have released
- * the runqueue, so break out if we got new
- * tasks meanwhile:
- */
- if (!rq->nr_running)
- goto switch_tasks;
- }
- } else {
- if (dependent_sleeper(cpu, rq)) {
- next = rq->idle;
+ wake_sleeping_dependent(cpu);
goto switch_tasks;
}
- /*
- * dependent_sleeper() releases and reacquires the runqueue
- * lock, hence go into the idle loop if the rq went
- * empty meanwhile:
- */
- if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
- goto go_idle;
}
array = rq->active;
@@ -3057,6 +2986,8 @@ go_idle:
}
}
next->sleep_type = SLEEP_NORMAL;
+ if (dependent_sleeper(cpu, rq, next))
+ next = rq->idle;
switch_tasks:
if (next == rq->idle)
schedstat_inc(rq, sched_goidle);
@@ -6160,7 +6091,6 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
rq->push_cpu = 0;
rq->migration_thread = NULL;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->migration_queue);
- rq->cpu = i;
#endif
atomic_set(&rq->nr_iowait, 0);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx are
tightening-hugetlb-strict-accounting.patch
sched-fix-smt-nice-lock-contention-and-optimization.patch
sched-fix-interactive-ceiling-code.patch
sched-implement-smpnice.patch
sched-prevent-high-load-weight-tasks-suppressing-balancing.patch
sched-improve-stability-of-smpnice-load-balancing.patch
sched-improve-smpnice-load-balancing-when-load-per-task.patch
sched-modify-move_tasks-to-improve-load-balancing-outcomes.patch
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
