Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
大约 1 年 前同步成功

通知 158
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 06 10月, 2011 3 次提交
  3. 18 9月, 2011 1 次提交
  5. 14 8月, 2011 6 次提交
  7. 01 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  9. 15 6月, 2011 2 次提交
  11. 28 5月, 2011 1 次提交
  13. 16 5月, 2011 2 次提交
  15. 14 4月, 2011 2 次提交
  17. 31 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  19. 04 3月, 2011 1 次提交
    • B
      sched: Fix sched rt group scheduling when hierachy is enabled · 0c3b9168
      由 Balbir Singh 提交于 
      The current sched rt code is broken when it comes to hierarchical
scheduling, this patch fixes two problems

1. It adds redundant enqueuing (harmless) when it finds a queue
   has tasks enqueued, but it has no run time and it is not
   throttled.

2. The most important change is in sched_rt_rq_enqueue/dequeue.
   The code just picks the rt_rq belonging to the current cpu
   on which the period timer runs, the patch fixes it, so that
   the correct rt_se is enqueued/dequeued.

Tested with a simple hierarchy

/c/d, c and d assigned similar runtimes of 50,000 and a while
1 loop runs within "d". Both c and d get throttled, without
the patch, the task just stops running and never runs (depends
on where the sched_rt b/w timer runs). With the patch, the
task is throttled and runs as expected.

[ bharata, suggestions on how to pick the rt_se belong to the
  rt_rq and correct cpu ]
Signed-off-by: NBalbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: NBharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: stable@kernel.org
LKML-Reference: <20110303113435.GA2868@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      0c3b9168
  21. 03 2月, 2011 1 次提交
  23. 26 1月, 2011 1 次提交
    • P
      sched: Fix switch_from_fair() · da7a735e
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      When a task is taken out of the fair class we must ensure the vruntime
is properly normalized because when we put it back in it will assume
to be normalized.

The case that goes wrong is when changing away from the fair class
while sleeping. Sleeping tasks have non-normalized vruntime in order
to make sleeper-fairness work. So treat the switch away from fair as a
wakeup and preserve the relative vruntime.

Also update sysrq-n to call the ->switch_{to,from} methods.
Reported-by: NOnkalo Samu <samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      da7a735e
  25. 14 12月, 2010 2 次提交
    • S
      sched: Change pick_next_task_rt from unlikely to likely · 8e54a2c0
      由 Steven Rostedt 提交于 
      The if (unlikely(!rt_rq->rt_nr_running)) test in pick_next_task_rt()
tests if there is another rt task ready to run. If so, then pick it.

In most systems, only one RT task runs at a time most of the time.
Running the branch unlikely annotator profiler on a system doing average
work "running firefox, evolution, xchat, distcc builds, etc", it showed the
following:

 correct incorrect  %        Function                  File              Line
 ------- ---------  -        --------                  ----              ----
  324344 135104992  99 _pick_next_task_rt             sched_rt.c           1064

99% of the time the condition is true. When an RT task schedules out,
it is unlikely that another RT task is waiting to run on that same run queue.

Simply remove the unlikely() condition.
Acked-by: NGregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc:Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
      8e54a2c0
    • Y
      sched: Cleanup pre_schedule_rt · 33c3d6c6
      由 Yong Zhang 提交于 
      Since [commit 9a897c5a:
sched: RT-balance, replace hooks with pre/post schedule and wakeup methods]
we must call pre_schedule_rt if prev is rt task.
So condition rt_task(prev) is always true and the 'unlikely' declaration is
simply incorrect.
Signed-off-by: NYong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
      33c3d6c6
  27. 18 11月, 2010 1 次提交
  29. 19 10月, 2010 2 次提交
    • V
      sched: Do not account irq time to current task · 305e6835
      由 Venkatesh Pallipadi 提交于 
      Scheduler accounts both softirq and interrupt processing times to the
currently running task. This means, if the interrupt processing was
for some other task in the system, then the current task ends up being
penalized as it gets shorter runtime than otherwise.

Change sched task accounting to acoount only actual task time from
currently running task. Now update_curr(), modifies the delta_exec to
depend on rq->clock_task.

Note that this change only handles CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING case. We can
extend this to CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING with minimal effort. But, thats
for later.

This change will impact scheduling behavior in interrupt heavy conditions.

Tested on a 4-way system with eth0 handled by CPU 2 and a network heavy
task (nc) running on CPU 3 (and no RSS/RFS). With that I have CPU 2
spending 75%+ of its time in irq processing. CPU 3 spending around 35%
time running nc task.

Now, if I run another CPU intensive task on CPU 2, without this change
/proc/<pid>/schedstat shows 100% of time accounted to this task. With this
change, it rightly shows less than 25% accounted to this task as remaining
time is actually spent on irq processing.
Signed-off-by: NVenkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1286237003-12406-7-git-send-email-venki@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      305e6835
    • P
      sched: Unindent labels · 49246274
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Labels should be on column 0.
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      49246274
  31. 21 9月, 2010 2 次提交
    • S
      sched: Give CPU bound RT tasks preference · b3bc211c
      由 Steven Rostedt 提交于 
      If a high priority task is waking up on a CPU that is running a
lower priority task that is bound to a CPU, see if we can move the
high RT task to another CPU first. Note, if all other CPUs are
running higher priority tasks than the CPU bounded current task,
then it will be preempted regardless.
Signed-off-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
LKML-Reference: <20100921024138.888922071@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      b3bc211c
    • S
      sched: Try not to migrate higher priority RT tasks · 43fa5460
      由 Steven Rostedt 提交于 
      When first working on the RT scheduler design, we concentrated on
keeping all CPUs running RT tasks instead of having multiple RT
tasks on a single CPU waiting for the migration thread to move
them. Instead we take a more proactive stance and push or pull RT
tasks from one CPU to another on wakeup or scheduling.

When an RT task wakes up on a CPU that is running another RT task,
instead of preempting it and killing the cache of the running RT
task, we look to see if we can migrate the RT task that is waking
up, even if the RT task waking up is of higher priority.

This may sound a bit odd, but RT tasks should be limited in
migration by the user anyway. But in practice, people do not do
this, which causes high prio RT tasks to bounce around the CPUs.
This becomes even worse when we have priority inheritance, because
a high prio task can block on a lower prio task and boost its
priority. When the lower prio task wakes up the high prio task, if
it happens to be on the same CPU it will migrate off of it.

But in reality, the above does not happen much either, because the
wake up of the lower prio task, which has already been boosted, if
it was on the same CPU as the higher prio task, it would then
migrate off of it. But anyway, we do not want to migrate them
either.

To examine the scheduling, I created a test program and examined it
under kernelshark. The test program created CPU * 2 threads, where
each thread had a different priority. The program takes different
options. The options used in this change log was to have priority
inheritance mutexes or not.

All threads did the following loop:

static void grab_lock(long id, int iter, int l)
{
	ftrace_write("thread %ld iter %d, taking lock %d\n",
		     id, iter, l);
	pthread_mutex_lock(&locks[l]);
	ftrace_write("thread %ld iter %d, took lock %d\n",
		     id, iter, l);
	busy_loop(nr_tasks - id);
	ftrace_write("thread %ld iter %d, unlock lock %d\n",
		     id, iter, l);
	pthread_mutex_unlock(&locks[l]);
}

void *start_task(void *id)
{
	[...]
	while (!done) {
		for (l = 0; l < nr_locks; l++) {
			grab_lock(id, i, l);
			ftrace_write("thread %ld iter %d sleeping\n",
				     id, i);
			ms_sleep(id);
		}
		i++;
	}
	[...]
}

The busy_loop(ms) keeps the CPU spinning for ms milliseconds. The
ms_sleep(ms) sleeps for ms milliseconds. The ftrace_write() writes
to the ftrace buffer to help analyze via ftrace.

The higher the id, the higher the prio, the shorter it does the
busy loop, but the longer it spins. This is usually the case with
RT tasks, the lower priority tasks usually run longer than higher
priority tasks.

At the end of the test, it records the number of loops each thread
took, as well as the number of voluntary preemptions, non-voluntary
preemptions, and number of migrations each thread took, taking the
information from /proc/$$/sched and /proc/$$/status.

Running this on a 4 CPU processor, the results without changes to
the kernel looked like this:

Task        vol    nonvol   migrated     iterations
----        ---    ------   --------     ----------
  0:         53      3220       1470             98
  1:        562       773        724             98
  2:        752       933       1375             98
  3:        749        39        697             98
  4:        758         5        515             98
  5:        764         2        679             99
  6:        761         2        535             99
  7:        757         3        346             99

total:     5156       4977      6341            787

Each thread regardless of priority migrated a few hundred times.
The higher priority tasks, were a little better but still took
quite an impact.

By letting higher priority tasks bump the lower prio task from the
CPU, things changed a bit:

Task        vol    nonvol   migrated     iterations
----        ---    ------   --------     ----------
  0:         37      2835       1937             98
  1:        666      1821       1865             98
  2:        654      1003       1385             98
  3:        664       635        973             99
  4:        698       197        352             99
  5:        703       101        159             99
  6:        708         1         75             99
  7:        713         1          2             99

total:     4843       6594      6748            789

The total # of migrations did not change (several runs showed the
difference all within the noise). But we now see a dramatic
improvement to the higher priority tasks. (kernelshark showed that
the watchdog timer bumped the highest priority task to give it the
2 count. This was actually consistent with every run).

Notice that the # of iterations did not change either.

The above was with priority inheritance mutexes. That is, when the
higher prority task blocked on a lower priority task, the lower
priority task would inherit the higher priority task (which shows
why task 6 was bumped so many times). When not using priority
inheritance mutexes, the current kernel shows this:

Task        vol    nonvol   migrated     iterations
----        ---    ------   --------     ----------
  0:         56      3101       1892             95
  1:        594       713        937             95
  2:        625       188        618             95
  3:        628         4        491             96
  4:        640         7        468             96
  5:        631         2        501             96
  6:        641         1        466             96
  7:        643         2        497             96

total:     4458       4018      5870            765

Not much changed with or without priority inheritance mutexes. But
if we let the high priority task bump lower priority tasks on
wakeup we see:

Task        vol    nonvol   migrated     iterations
----        ---    ------   --------     ----------
  0:        115      3439       2782             98
  1:        633      1354       1583             99
  2:        652       919       1218             99
  3:        645       713        934             99
  4:        690         3          3             99
  5:        694         1          4             99
  6:        720         3          4             99
  7:        747         0          1            100

Which shows a even bigger change. The big difference between task 3
and task 4 is because we have only 4 CPUs on the machine, causing
the 4 highest prio tasks to always have preference.

Although I did not measure cache misses, and I'm sure there would
be little to measure since the test was not data intensive, I could
imagine large improvements for higher priority tasks when dealing
with lower priority tasks. Thus, I'm satisfied with making the
change and agreeing with what Gregory Haskins argued a few years
ago when we first had this discussion.

One final note. All tasks in the above tests were RT tasks. Any RT
task will always preempt a non RT task that is running on the CPU
the RT task wants to run on.
Signed-off-by: NSteven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
LKML-Reference: <20100921024138.605460343@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      43fa5460
  33. 18 6月, 2010 1 次提交
  35. 03 4月, 2010 2 次提交
    • P
      sched: Add enqueue/dequeue flags · 371fd7e7
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      In order to reduce the dependency on TASK_WAKING rework the enqueue
interface to support a proper flags field.

Replace the int wakeup, bool head arguments with an int flags argument
and create the following flags:

  ENQUEUE_WAKEUP - the enqueue is a wakeup of a sleeping task,
  ENQUEUE_WAKING - the enqueue has relative vruntime due to
                   having sched_class::task_waking() called,
  ENQUEUE_HEAD - the waking task should be places on the head
                 of the priority queue (where appropriate).

For symmetry also convert sched_class::dequeue() to a flags scheme.
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      371fd7e7
    • P
      sched: Fix TASK_WAKING vs fork deadlock · 0017d735
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Oleg noticed a few races with the TASK_WAKING usage on fork.

 - since TASK_WAKING is basically a spinlock, it should be IRQ safe
 - since we set TASK_WAKING (*) without holding rq->lock it could
   be there still is a rq->lock holder, thereby not actually
   providing full serialization.

(*) in fact we clear PF_STARTING, which in effect enables TASK_WAKING.

Cure the second issue by not setting TASK_WAKING in sched_fork(), but
only temporarily in wake_up_new_task() while calling select_task_rq().

Cure the first by holding rq->lock around the select_task_rq() call,
this will disable IRQs, this however requires that we push down the
rq->lock release into select_task_rq_fair()'s cgroup stuff.

Because select_task_rq_fair() still needs to drop the rq->lock we
cannot fully get rid of TASK_WAKING.
Reported-by: NOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      0017d735
  37. 11 3月, 2010 2 次提交
  39. 07 3月, 2010 1 次提交
  41. 04 2月, 2010 1 次提交
  43. 23 1月, 2010 2 次提交
  45. 21 1月, 2010 1 次提交
  47. 17 1月, 2010 1 次提交