From e113a745f693af196c8081b328bf42def086989b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dimitri Sivanich Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:03:41 -0500 Subject: sched/rt: small optimization to update_curr_rt() Impact: micro-optimization to SCHED_FIFO/RR scheduling A very minor improvement, but might it be better to check sched_rt_runtime(rt_rq) before taking the rt_runtime_lock? Peter Zijlstra observes: > Yes, I think its ok to do so. > > Like pointed out in the other thread, there are two races: > > - sched_rt_runtime() going to RUNTIME_INF, and that will be handled > properly by sched_rt_runtime_exceeded() > > - sched_rt_runtime() going to !RUNTIME_INF, and here we can miss an > accounting cycle, but I don't think that is something to worry too > much about. Signed-off-by: Dimitri Sivanich Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar -- kernel/sched_rt.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- kernel/sched_rt.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/sched_rt.c') diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c index d9ba9d5f99d6..c7963d5d0625 100644 --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c @@ -537,13 +537,13 @@ static void update_curr_rt(struct rq *rq) for_each_sched_rt_entity(rt_se) { rt_rq = rt_rq_of_se(rt_se); - spin_lock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); if (sched_rt_runtime(rt_rq) != RUNTIME_INF) { + spin_lock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); rt_rq->rt_time += delta_exec; if (sched_rt_runtime_exceeded(rt_rq)) resched_task(curr); + spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); } - spin_unlock(&rt_rq->rt_runtime_lock); } } -- cgit v1.2.3 From cf7f8690e864c6fe11e77202dd847fa60f483418 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sripathi Kodi Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 18:57:14 +0530 Subject: sched, lockdep: inline double_unlock_balance() We have a test case which measures the variation in the amount of time needed to perform a fixed amount of work on the preempt_rt kernel. We started seeing deterioration in it's performance recently. The test should never take more than 10 microseconds, but we started 5-10% failure rate. Using elimination method, we traced the problem to commit 1b12bbc747560ea68bcc132c3d05699e52271da0 (lockdep: re-annotate scheduler runqueues). When LOCKDEP is disabled, this patch only adds an additional function call to double_unlock_balance(). Hence I inlined double_unlock_balance() and the problem went away. Here is a patch to make this change. Signed-off-by: Sripathi Kodi Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched_rt.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/sched_rt.c') diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c index c7963d5d0625..2bdd44423599 100644 --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c @@ -910,7 +910,8 @@ static void put_prev_task_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) #define RT_MAX_TRIES 3 static int double_lock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest); -static void double_unlock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest); +static inline void double_unlock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, + struct rq *busiest); static void deactivate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sleep); -- cgit v1.2.3 From 70574a996fc7a70c5586eb56bd92a544eccf18b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexey Dobriyan Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:08:00 +0300 Subject: sched: move double_unlock_balance() higher Move double_lock_balance()/double_unlock_balance() higher to fix the following with gcc-3.4.6: CC kernel/sched.o In file included from kernel/sched.c:1605: kernel/sched_rt.c: In function `find_lock_lowest_rq': kernel/sched_rt.c:914: sorry, unimplemented: inlining failed in call to 'double_unlock_balance': function body not available kernel/sched_rt.c:1077: sorry, unimplemented: called from here make[2]: *** [kernel/sched.o] Error 1 Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched_rt.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/sched_rt.c') diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c index 2bdd44423599..587a16e2a8f5 100644 --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c @@ -909,10 +909,6 @@ static void put_prev_task_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) /* Only try algorithms three times */ #define RT_MAX_TRIES 3 -static int double_lock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq *busiest); -static inline void double_unlock_balance(struct rq *this_rq, - struct rq *busiest); - static void deactivate_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int sleep); static int pick_rt_task(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int cpu) -- cgit v1.2.3 From 80f40ee4a07530cc3acbc239a9299ec47025825b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bharata B Rao Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:56:48 +0530 Subject: sched: use RCU variant of list traversal in for_each_leaf_rt_rq() Impact: fix potential of rare crash for_each_leaf_rt_rq() walks an RCU protected list (rq->leaf_rt_rq_list), but doesn't use list_for_each_entry_rcu(). Fix this. Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao Cc: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched_rt.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'kernel/sched_rt.c') diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c index d9ba9d5f99d6..7bdf84c85ccd 100644 --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline u64 sched_rt_period(struct rt_rq *rt_rq) } #define for_each_leaf_rt_rq(rt_rq, rq) \ - list_for_each_entry(rt_rq, &rq->leaf_rt_rq_list, leaf_rt_rq_list) + list_for_each_entry_rcu(rt_rq, &rq->leaf_rt_rq_list, leaf_rt_rq_list) static inline struct rq *rq_of_rt_rq(struct rt_rq *rt_rq) { -- cgit v1.2.3