[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 03/16] sched: Wrap rq::lock access

On 3/29/19 6:35 AM, Julien Desfossez wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:09 PM Subhra Mazumdar <>
> wrote:
>> Is the core wide lock primarily responsible for the regression? I ran
>> upto patch
>> 12 which also has the core wide lock for tagged cgroups and also calls
>> newidle_balance() from pick_next_task(). I don't see any regression. Of
>> course
>> the core sched version of pick_next_task() may be doing more but
>> comparing with
>> the __pick_next_task() it doesn't look too horrible.
> On further testing and investigation, we also agree that spinlock contention
> is not the major cause for the regression, but we feel that it should be one
> of the major contributing factors to this performance loss.
I finally did some code bisection and found the following lines are
basically responsible for the regression. Commenting them out I don't see
the regressions. Can you confirm? I am yet to figure if this is needed for
the correctness of core scheduling and if so can we do this better?


diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index fe3918c..3b3388a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3741,8 +3741,8 @@ pick_next_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct
*prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
                                 * If there weren't no cookies; we
don't need
                                 * to bother with the other siblings.
-                               if (i == cpu && !rq->core->core_cookie)
-                                       goto next_class;
+                               //if (i == cpu && !rq->core->core_cookie)
+                                       //goto next_class;


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-29 23:27    [W:0.171 / U:6.900 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site