On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:31:57PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > The current code will call pick_next_task_fair a second time
> > in the slow path if we did not pull any task in our first try.
> > This is really unnecessary as we already know no task can
> > be pulled and it doubles the delay for the cpu to enter idle.
> >
> > We instrumented some network workloads and that saw that
> > pick_next_task_fair is frequently called twice before a cpu enters idle.
> > The call to pick_next_task_fair can add
> > non trivial latency as it calls load_balance which runs find_busiest_group
> > on an hierarchy of sched domains spanning the cpus for a large system. For
> > some 4 socket systems, we saw almost 0.25 msec spent per call
> > of pick_next_task_fair before a cpu can be idled.
> >
> > This patch skips pick_next_task_fair in the slow path if it
> > has already been invoked.
>
> How about something like so?
Yes, this version is more concise.
>
> Its a little more contained.
>
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2636,8 +2636,14 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct tas
> if (likely(prev->sched_class == class &&
> rq->nr_running == rq->cfs.h_nr_running)) {
> p = fair_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev);
> - if (likely(p && p != RETRY_TASK))
> - return p;
> + if (unlikely(p == RETRY_TASK))
> + goto again;
> +
> + /* assumes fair_sched_class->next == idle_sched_class */
> + if (unlikely(!p))
> + p = pick_next_task_idle(rq, prev);
Should be
p = idle_sched_class.pick_next_task(rq, prev);
> +
> + return p;
> }
>
> again:
I'll respin the patch with these changes.
Thanks.
Tim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
