Re: [Patch 3/8] cpu delays

[Shailabh Nagar]

Andrew Morton wrote:

> Shailabh Nagar <nagar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
> > delayacct-schedstats.patch
> >
> > Make the task-related schedstats functions
> > callable by delay accounting even if schedstats
> > collection isn't turned on. This removes the
> > dependency of delay accounting on schedstats and allows
> > cpu delays to be exported.
> >
> > ..
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.16/include/linux/sched.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.16.orig/include/linux/sched.h	2006-03-29 18:13:13.000000000 -0500
> > +++ linux-2.6.16/include/linux/sched.h	2006-03-29 18:13:15.000000000 -0500
> > @@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ typedef struct prio_array prio_array_t;
> > struct backing_dev_info;
> > struct reclaim_state;
> >
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
> > struct sched_info {
> > 	/* cumulative counters */
> > 	unsigned long	cpu_time,	/* time spent on the cpu */
> > @@ -537,10 +537,14 @@ struct sched_info {
> > 			last_queued;	/* when we were last queued to run */
> > };
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
> > extern struct file_operations proc_schedstat_operations;
> > -#endif
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS */
> > +#endif /* defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT) */
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT
> > +extern int delayacct_on;
> > +
> >    
>
> This was already declared in delayacct.h and nothing in sched.h needs it. 
> So it's better if .c files pick this declaration up from delayacct.h.
>
>  
>
> > +static inline void rq_sched_info_arrive(struct runqueue *rq,
> > +						unsigned long diff)
> > +{
> > +	if (rq) {
> > +		rq->rq_sched_info.run_delay += diff;
> > +		rq->rq_sched_info.pcnt++;
> > +	}
> > +}
> >    
>
> The nonatomic updates need locking.  I assume it's runqueue.lock, but a
> comment describing the rules would be good.
>
>  
Yes, it is rq.lock. Will add comment.

> > +static inline void rq_sched_info_depart(struct runqueue *rq,
> > +						unsigned long diff)
> > +{
> > +	if (rq)
> > +		rq->rq_sched_info.cpu_time += diff;
> > +}
> >    
>
> Ditto.
>  
Will add comment.

>  
>
> > static inline void sched_info_queued(task_t *t)
> > {
> > -	if (!t->sched_info.last_queued)
> > -		t->sched_info.last_queued = jiffies;
> > +	if (unlikely(sched_info_on()))
> > +		if (!t->sched_info.last_queued)
> > +			t->sched_info.last_queued = jiffies;
> > }
> >    
>
> It might be better to put the unlikely() into sched_info_on() itself.
>  
The function sched_info_on has only got a return statement so putting 
the unlikely within
it doesn't seem possible.

This is a rather aggressive use of the unlikely. In the case where 
CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS is
defined, sched_info_on always returns 1 so the unlikely will always 
cause a mispredict. I'm assuming
the extra penalty for that is acceptable for those using schedstats 
since its never turned on in a production
kernel.
If only CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT is configured, the value of delayacct_on, 
which is very
likely going to be 0, will be returned so the unlikely is potentially 
helpful to reduce overhead.

Thoughts ?

As I write this, I realize the function sched_info_on() is also wrongly 
written and doesn't account for the
case where both SCHEDSTATS and TASK_DELAY_ACCT  are configured. Will fix 
that. But thats
orthogonal to the above discussion of whether the unlikely should be used.

--Shailabh


-
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/