(2014/04/17 19:05), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Anyway, if you want to preserve the same broken ass crap we had pre
> NOHZ, something like the below should do that.
>
> I'm not really thrilled with iowait_{start,stop}() but I think they
> should have the same general cost as the atomic ops we already had. In
> particular on x86 an uncontended lock+unlock is a single atomic.
>
> This is on top the first patch from Frederic that both you and Denys
> carried.
>
> That said; I really hate duckt taping this together, for the generated
> numbers are still useless.
>
> --- a/include/linux/ktime.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ktime.h
> @@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ union ktime {
>
> typedef union ktime ktime_t; /* Kill this */
>
> +#define ktime_zero ((ktime_t){ .tv64 = 0 })
> +
> /*
> * ktime_t definitions when using the 64-bit scalar representation:
> */
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2297,15 +2297,29 @@ unsigned long nr_iowait(void)
> unsigned long i, sum = 0;
>
> for_each_possible_cpu(i)
> - sum += atomic_read(&cpu_rq(i)->nr_iowait);
> + sum += cpu_rq(i)->nr_iowait;
>
> return sum;
> }
>
> unsigned long nr_iowait_cpu(int cpu)
> {
> - struct rq *this = cpu_rq(cpu);
> - return atomic_read(&this->nr_iowait);
> + return cpu_rq(cpu)->nr_iowait;
> +}
> +
> +void nr_iowait_deltas(ktime_t start, ktime_t now,
> + ktime_t *iowait_delta, ktime_t *idle_delta)
> +{
> + struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> +
> + raw_spin_lock(&rq->iowait_lock);
> + if (rq->nr_iowait) {
> + *iowait_delta = ktime_sub(now, start);
> + } else {
> + *iowait_delta = ktime_sub(rq->last_iowait, start);
> + *idle_delta = ktime_sub(now, rq->last_iowait);
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->iowait_lock);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> @@ -4201,6 +4215,24 @@ bool __sched yield_to(struct task_struct
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(yield_to);
>
> +static inline void iowait_start(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + raw_spin_lock(&rq->iowait_lock);
> + rq->nr_iowait++;
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->iowait_lock);
> + current->in_iowait = 1;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void iowait_stop(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + current->in_iowait = 0;
> + raw_spin_lock(&rq->iowait_lock);
> + rq->nr_iowait--;
> + if (!rq->nr_iowait && rq != this_rq())
> + rq->last_iowait = ktime_get();
> + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->iowait_lock);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * This task is about to go to sleep on IO. Increment rq->nr_iowait so
> * that process accounting knows that this is a task in IO wait state.
> @@ -4210,12 +4242,10 @@ void __sched io_schedule(void)
> struct rq *rq = raw_rq();
>
> delayacct_blkio_start();
> - atomic_inc(&rq->nr_iowait);
> + iowait_start();
> blk_flush_plug(current);
> - current->in_iowait = 1;
> schedule();
> - current->in_iowait = 0;
> - atomic_dec(&rq->nr_iowait);
> + iowait_stop();
> delayacct_blkio_end();
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(io_schedule);
> @@ -4226,12 +4256,10 @@ long __sched io_schedule_timeout(long ti
> long ret;
>
> delayacct_blkio_start();
> - atomic_inc(&rq->nr_iowait);
> + iowait_start();
> blk_flush_plug(current);
> - current->in_iowait = 1;
> ret = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> - current->in_iowait = 0;
> - atomic_dec(&rq->nr_iowait);
> + iowait_stop();
> delayacct_blkio_end();
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -6880,7 +6908,10 @@ void __init sched_init(void)
> #endif
> #endif
> init_rq_hrtick(rq);
> - atomic_set(&rq->nr_iowait, 0);
> +
> + raw_spinlock_init(&rq->iowait_lock);
> + rq->nr_iowait = 0;
> + rq->last_iowait = ktime_get();
> }
>
> set_load_weight(&init_task);
I think it also works... but I have some concerns here:
- it changes golden path in scheduler core.
impact for performance is questionable.
- it forces managing last_iowait even if system is in busy
I guess it will drop max performance of the system
while my proposed fix only touches procedure for idle
with nohz.
By the way, I have posted my v4 patch set:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/17/120
I'll happy if you could give your comments on it too!
Thanks,
H.Seto
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
