Re: [PATCH] Inline double_unlock_balance()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 18:57 +0530, Sripathi Kodi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > We have a test case which measures the variation in the amount of time 
> > needed to perform a fixed amount of work on the preempt_rt kernel. We 
> > started seeing deterioration in it's performance recently. The test 
> > should never take more than 10 microseconds, but we started 5-10% 
> > failure rate. Using elimination method, we traced the problem to commit 
> > 1b12bbc747560ea68bcc132c3d05699e52271da0 (lockdep: re-annotate 
> > scheduler runqueues). When LOCKDEP is disabled, this patch only adds an 
> > additional function call to double_unlock_balance(). Hence I inlined 
> > double_unlock_balance() and the problem went away. Here is a patch to 
> > make this change.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Sripathi.
> > 
> > lockdep: Inline double_unlock_balance()
> > 
> > Additional function call for double_unlock_balance() causes latency 
> > problems for some test cases on the preempt_rt kernel.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sripathi Kodi <sripathik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Acked-by; Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>

hm, i'm not sure why it makes such a difference. Possibly cache 
alignment or code generation details pushing the critical path just 
beyond the L1 cache limit and causing thrashing?

Anyway, i've applied it to tip/sched/rt, as we generally want to 
inline such short locking ops.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/