lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 05/22] sched: remove domain iterations in fork/exec/wake
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:37:34AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
> Guess the search cpu from bottom to up in domain tree come from
> commit 3dbd5342074a1e sched: multilevel sbe sbf, the purpose is
> balancing over tasks on all level domains.
>
> This balancing cost much if there has many domain/groups in a large
> system. And force spreading task among different domains may cause
> performance issue due to bad locality.
>
> If we remove this code, we will get quick fork/exec/wake, plus better
> balancing among whole system, that also reduce migrations in future
> load balancing.
>
> This patch increases 10+% performance of hackbench on my 4 sockets
> NHM and SNB machines.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 20 +-------------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index ecfbf8e..895a3f4 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3364,15 +3364,9 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
> goto unlock;
> }
>
> - while (sd) {
> + if (sd) {
> int load_idx = sd->forkexec_idx;
> struct sched_group *group;
> - int weight;
> -
> - if (!(sd->flags & sd_flag)) {
> - sd = sd->child;
> - continue;
> - }
>
> if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE)
> load_idx = sd->wake_idx;
> @@ -3382,18 +3376,6 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int wake_flags)
> goto unlock;
>
> new_cpu = find_idlest_cpu(group, p, cpu);
> -
> - /* Now try balancing at a lower domain level of new_cpu */
> - cpu = new_cpu;
> - weight = sd->span_weight;
> - sd = NULL;
> - for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
> - if (weight <= tmp->span_weight)
> - break;
> - if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
> - sd = tmp;
> - }
> - /* while loop will break here if sd == NULL */

I agree that this should be a major optimization. I just can't figure
out why the existing recursive search for an idle cpu switches to the
new cpu near the end and then starts a search for an idle cpu in the new
cpu's domain. Is this to handle some exotic sched domain configurations?
If so, they probably wouldn't work with your optimizations.

Morten

> }
> unlock:
> rcu_read_unlock();
> --
> 1.7.12
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-09 19:41    [W:0.342 / U:3.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site