lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] pipe: introduce busy wait for pipe
From
Date


On 08/31/2018 09:09 AM, Steven Sistare wrote:
> On 8/30/2018 4:24 PM, subhra mazumdar wrote:
>> Introduce pipe_ll_usec field for pipes that indicates the amount of micro
>> seconds a thread should spin if pipe is empty or full before sleeping. This
>> is similar to network sockets. Workloads like hackbench in pipe mode
>> benefits significantly from this by avoiding the sleep and wakeup overhead.
>> Other similar usecases can benefit. pipe_wait_flag is used to signal any
>> thread busy waiting. pipe_busy_loop_timeout checks if spin time is over.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h b/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
>> index e7497c9..fdfd2a2 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
>> @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
>> #ifndef _LINUX_PIPE_FS_I_H
>> #define _LINUX_PIPE_FS_I_H
>>
>> +#include <linux/sched/clock.h>
>> +
>> #define PIPE_DEF_BUFFERS 16
>>
>> #define PIPE_BUF_FLAG_LRU 0x01 /* page is on the LRU */
>> @@ -54,6 +56,8 @@ struct pipe_inode_info {
>> unsigned int waiting_writers;
>> unsigned int r_counter;
>> unsigned int w_counter;
>> + unsigned int pipe_ll_usec;
>> + unsigned long pipe_wait_flag;
>> struct page *tmp_page;
>> struct fasync_struct *fasync_readers;
>> struct fasync_struct *fasync_writers;
>> @@ -157,6 +161,21 @@ static inline int pipe_buf_steal(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
>> return buf->ops->steal(pipe, buf);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline unsigned long pipe_busy_loop_current_time(void)
>> +{
>> + return (unsigned long)(local_clock() >> 10);
> Why ">> 10" ? local_lock() has nanosec units, and you compare to the tunable
> pipe_llc_sec which has microsec units. Should be ">> 3". Better yet, redefine
> the tunable to have nanosec units. I suspect you will need very large values
> of the tunable to show similar results.
It's 2^10. I don't think using nanosec units is necessary. It is unlikely
data will be read or written in nano seconds. sk_busy_loop_timeout for
sockets uses micro seconds too.
>
> Also, since this type of optimization consumes CPU extra cycles that could
> be used by other tasks, show the overall CPU utilization before and after
> the optimization, such as by using "time hackbench ...".
OK.

Thanks,
Subhra
>
> - Steve
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline bool pipe_busy_loop_timeout(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
>> + unsigned long start_time)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long bp_usec = READ_ONCE(pipe->pipe_ll_usec);
>> + unsigned long end_time = start_time + bp_usec;
>> + unsigned long now = pipe_busy_loop_current_time();
>> +
>> + return time_after(now, end_time);
>> +}
>> +
>> /* Differs from PIPE_BUF in that PIPE_SIZE is the length of the actual
>> memory allocation, whereas PIPE_BUF makes atomicity guarantees. */
>> #define PIPE_SIZE PAGE_SIZE
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-05 02:50    [W:0.078 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site