Re: [patch 00/17] CFS Bandwidth Control v7.1

[Paul Turner]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> The +1.5% increase in vanilla kernel context switching performance is
>> unfortunate - where does that overhead come from?
>
> Looking at the asm output, I think its partly because things like:
>
> @@ -602,6 +618,8 @@ static void update_curr(struct cfs_rq *c
>                cpuacct_charge(curtask, delta_exec);
>                account_group_exec_runtime(curtask, delta_exec);
>        }
> +
> +       account_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq, delta_exec);
>  }
>
>
> +static void account_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> +               unsigned long delta_exec)
> +{
> +       if (!cfs_rq->runtime_enabled)
> +               return;
> +
> +       cfs_rq->runtime_remaining -= delta_exec;
> +       if (cfs_rq->runtime_remaining > 0)
> +               return;
> +
> +       assign_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq);
> +}
>
> generate a call, only to then take the first branch out, marking that
> function __always_inline would cure the call problem.

Indeed!  I looked at this today, fixing this inlining recovers ~50% of
the cost; however, my numbers are not directly comparable to Hu's (~2%
originally, improving to ~1%).

>  Going beyond that
> would be using static_branch() to track if there is any bandwidth
> tracking required at all.
>

I spent some time examining this option as well.  Our toolchain
apparently is stuck on gcc-4.4 which left me scratching my head at the
supposed jump label assembly being omitted until I realized
CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO was missing.  I will roll this up also and benchmark
tomorrow.
--
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/