Re: [patch 5/6] sched: disable sched feature TTWU_QUEUE by default

[Mike Galbraith]

On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 05:30 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 15:03 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > plain text document attachment (disable_sched_ttwu_queue.patch)
> > Context-switch intensive microbenchmark on a 8-socket system had
> > ~600K times more resched IPI's on each logical CPU with this feature enabled
> > by default. Disabling this features makes that microbenchmark perform 5 times
> > better.
> > 
> > Also disabling this feature showed 2% performance improvement on a 8-socket
> > OLTP workload.
> > 
> > More heurestics are needed when and how to use this feature by default.
> > For now, disable it by default.
> 
> Yeah, the overhead for very hefty switchers is high enough to increase
> TCP_RR latency up to 13% in my testing.  I used a trylock() to generally
> not eat that, but leave the contended case improvement intact.
> 
> Peter suggested trying doing the IPI only when crossing cache
> boundaries, which worked for me as well.

On a related TTWU_QUEUE note, I was pondering idle_balance().
 
---
 kernel/sched_fair.c |   25 ++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Index: linux-3.0/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- linux-3.0.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ linux-3.0/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -3500,8 +3500,7 @@ out:
 static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq)
 {
 	struct sched_domain *sd;
-	int pulled_task = 0;
-	unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
+	unsigned long next_balance;
 
 	if (this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost)
 		return;
@@ -3512,33 +3511,41 @@ static void idle_balance(int this_cpu, s
 	raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
 
 	update_shares(this_cpu);
+	next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
 	rcu_read_lock();
 	for_each_domain(this_cpu, sd) {
 		unsigned long interval;
 		int balance = 1;
 
+		if (this_rq->nr_running || this_rq->wake_list)
+			break;
+
 		if (!(sd->flags & SD_LOAD_BALANCE))
 			continue;
 
-		if (sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE) {
-			/* If we've pulled tasks over stop searching: */
-			pulled_task = load_balance(this_cpu, this_rq,
-						   sd, CPU_NEWLY_IDLE, &balance);
-		}
+		if (!(sd->flags & SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE))
+			continue;
+
+		load_balance(this_cpu, this_rq, sd, CPU_NEWLY_IDLE, &balance);
 
 		interval = msecs_to_jiffies(sd->balance_interval);
 		if (time_after(next_balance, sd->last_balance + interval))
 			next_balance = sd->last_balance + interval;
-		if (pulled_task) {
+		if (this_rq->nr_running || this_rq->wake_list) {
 			this_rq->idle_stamp = 0;
 			break;
 		}
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 
+	/* IPI in flighht?  Let the it happen */
+	if (unlikely(this_rq->wake_list)) {
+		local_irq_enable();
+		local_irq_disable();
+	}
 	raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
 
-	if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
+	if (this_rq->nr_running || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
 		/*
 		 * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
 		 * a busy processor. So reset next_balance.



--
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/