[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/9] psi: pressure stall information for CPU, memory, and IO
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 11:05:50AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Argh, that's right. This needs an explicit count if we want to access
> it locklessly. And you already said you didn't like that this is the
> only state not derived purely from the task counters, so maybe this is
> the way to go after all.
> How about something like this (untested)?

> +static inline void psi_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
> + struct task_struct *next)
> +{
> + if (psi_disabled)
> + return;
> +
> + if (unlikely(prev->flags & PF_MEMSTALL))
> + psi_task_change(prev, rq_clock(rq), TSK_RECLAIMING, 0);
> + if (unlikely(next->flags & PF_MEMSTALL))
> + psi_task_change(next, rq_clock(rq), 0, TSK_RECLAIMING);
> +}

Urgh... can't say I really like that.

I would really rather do that scheduler_tick() thing to avoid the remote
update. The tick is a lot less hot than the switch path and esp.
next->flags might be a cold line (prev->flags is typically the same line
as prev->state so we already have that, but I don't think anybody now
looks at next->flags or its line, so that'd be cold load).

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-06 17:26    [W:0.059 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site