Re: [PATCH v3 2/7] sched: accumulate per-cfs_rq cpu usage

From: Paul Turner
Date: Thu Oct 14 2010 - 05:08:23 EST


On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 13:21 +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> +static u64 tg_request_cfs_quota(struct task_group *tg)
>> +{
>> +       struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b = tg_cfs_bandwidth(tg);
>> +       u64 delta = 0;
>> +
>> +       if (cfs_b->runtime > 0 || cfs_b->quota == RUNTIME_INF) {
>> +               raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> +               /*
>> +                * it's possible a bandwidth update has changed the global
>> +                * pool.
>> +                */
>> +               if (cfs_b->quota == RUNTIME_INF)
>> +                       delta = sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice();
>> +               else {
>> +                       delta = min(cfs_b->runtime,
>> +                                       sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice());
>> +                       cfs_b->runtime -= delta;
>> +               }
>> +               raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock);
>> +       }
>> +       return delta;
>> +}
>
> Since you check cfs_b->quote outside of cfs_b->lock anyway, you might as
> well avoid taking the lock in that case and directly return slice.
>

Do you mean in the RUNTIME_INF case?

I suppose we could just avoid taking the lock there (theoretically it
would be possible to slightly over-commit on a RUNTIME_INF =>
constrained transition, but this should be the supremely uncommon case
and hey, it's transitioning from unlimited bandwidth anyway).

> Also, you possibly evaluate sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice() twice.
>

Separate branch no? Should only be one evaluation. (fwiw the min
macro looks to cache the evaluation)
--
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/