Re: [RFC][PATCH] Improving directed yield scalability for PLE handler

[Raghavendra K T]

On 09/10/2012 10:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 22:26 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > +static bool __yield_to_candidate(struct task_struct *curr, struct task_struct *p)
> > > +{
> > > +     if (!curr->sched_class->yield_to_task)
> > > +             return false;
> > > +
> > > +     if (curr->sched_class != p->sched_class)
> > > +             return false;
> >
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > Should we also add a check if the runq has a skip buddy (as pointed out
> > by Raghu) and return if the skip buddy is already set.
>
> Oh right, I missed that suggestion.. the performance improvement went
> from 81% to 139% using this, right?
>
> It might make more sense to keep that separate, outside of this
> function, since its not a strict prerequisite.
>
> > > +     if (task_running(p_rq, p) || p->state)
> > > +             return false;
> > > +
> > > +     return true;
> > > +}
>
>
> > > @@ -4323,6 +4340,10 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct *p,
> > bool preempt)
> > >        rq = this_rq();
> > >
> > >   again:
> > > +     /* optimistic test to avoid taking locks */
> > > +     if (!__yield_to_candidate(curr, p))
> > > +             goto out_irq;
> > > +
>
> So add something like:
>
> 	/* Optimistic, if we 'raced' with another yield_to(), don't bother */
> 	if (p_rq->cfs_rq->skip)
> 		goto out_irq;
> > >        p_rq = task_rq(p);
> > >        double_rq_lock(rq, p_rq);
> But I do have a question on this optimization though,.. Why do we check
> p_rq->cfs_rq->skip and not rq->cfs_rq->skip ?
>
> That is, I'd like to see this thing explained a little better.
>
> Does it go something like: p_rq is the runqueue of the task we'd like to
> yield to, rq is our own, they might be the same. If we have a ->skip,
> there's nothing we can do about it, OTOH p_rq having a ->skip and
> failing the yield_to() simply means us picking the next VCPU thread,
> which might be running on an entirely different cpu (rq) and could
> succeed?

Yes, That is the intention (mean checking  p_rq->cfs->skip). Though we
may be overdoing this check in the scenario when multiple vcpus of same
VM pinned to same CPU.

I am testing the above patch. Hope to be able to get back with the
results 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/