From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: "Carter Li 李通洲" <[email protected]>,
"Pavel Begunkov" <[email protected]>,
io-uring <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ISSUE] The time cost of IOSQE_IO_LINK
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:09:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 01:44:32PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've not looked at git trees yet, but the below doesn't apply to
anything I have at hand.
Anyway, I think I can still make sense of it -- just a rename or two
seems to be missing.
A few notes on the below...
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 04278493bf15..447b06c6bed0 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -685,6 +685,11 @@ struct task_struct {
> #endif
> struct sched_dl_entity dl;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_IO_URING
> + struct list_head uring_work;
> + raw_spinlock_t uring_lock;
> +#endif
> +
Could we pretty please use struct callback_head for this, just like
task_work() and RCU ? Look at task_work_add() for inspiration.
And maybe remove the uring naming form this.
> #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK
> /* Clamp values requested for a scheduling entity */
> struct uclamp_se uclamp_req[UCLAMP_CNT];
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 51ca491d99ed..170fefa1caf8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2717,6 +2717,11 @@ static void __sched_fork(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *p)
> INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&p->preempt_notifiers);
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_IO_URING
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->uring_work);
> + raw_spin_lock_init(&p->uring_lock);
> +#endif
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_COMPACTION
> p->capture_control = NULL;
> #endif
> @@ -4104,6 +4109,20 @@ void __noreturn do_task_dead(void)
> cpu_relax();
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_IO_URING
> +extern void io_uring_task_handler(struct task_struct *tsk);
> +
> +static inline void io_uring_handler(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + if (!list_empty(&tsk->uring_work))
> + io_uring_task_handler(tsk);
> +}
> +#else /* !CONFIG_IO_URING */
> +static inline void io_uring_handler(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static void sched_out_update(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> /*
> @@ -4121,6 +4140,7 @@ static void sched_out_update(struct task_struct *tsk)
> io_wq_worker_sleeping(tsk);
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> }
> + io_uring_handler(tsk);
> }
>
> static void sched_in_update(struct task_struct *tsk)
> @@ -4131,6 +4151,7 @@ static void sched_in_update(struct task_struct *tsk)
> else
> io_wq_worker_running(tsk);
> }
> + io_uring_handler(tsk);
> }
The problem I have here is that we have an unconditional load of the
cacheline that has ->uring_work in.
/me curses about how nobody seems interested in building useful
cacheline analyis tools :/
Lemme see if I can find a spot for this... perhaps something like so?
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 0918904c939d..4fba93293fa1 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -649,6 +649,7 @@ struct task_struct {
/* Per task flags (PF_*), defined further below: */
unsigned int flags;
unsigned int ptrace;
+ int on_rq;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
struct llist_node wake_entry;
@@ -671,14 +672,16 @@ struct task_struct {
int recent_used_cpu;
int wake_cpu;
#endif
- int on_rq;
int prio;
int static_prio;
int normal_prio;
unsigned int rt_priority;
+ struct callbach_head *sched_work;
+
const struct sched_class *sched_class;
+
struct sched_entity se;
struct sched_rt_entity rt;
#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_SCHED
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-17 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-12 16:31 [ISSUE] The time cost of IOSQE_IO_LINK Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-12 17:11 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-12 17:22 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-12 17:29 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-13 0:33 ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-13 15:08 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-13 15:14 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-13 15:51 ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-14 1:25 ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-14 2:45 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 5:03 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-14 15:47 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 16:18 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 17:52 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-14 20:44 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15 0:16 ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-15 1:10 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15 1:25 ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-15 1:27 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15 6:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-15 6:32 ` Carter Li 李通洲
2020-02-15 15:11 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-16 19:06 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-16 22:23 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 10:30 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-02-17 19:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-16 23:06 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-16 23:07 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 12:09 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-02-17 16:12 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 17:16 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-17 17:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-17 18:16 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 13:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 14:27 ` [PATCH] asm-generic/atomic: Add try_cmpxchg() fallbacks Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 14:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-20 10:30 ` Will Deacon
2020-02-20 10:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-20 10:39 ` Will Deacon
2020-02-18 14:56 ` [ISSUE] The time cost of IOSQE_IO_LINK Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-18 15:07 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-18 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 16:33 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 15:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-18 15:50 ` [PATCH] task_work_run: don't take ->pi_lock unconditionally Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-20 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-20 17:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-20 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-21 14:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-02-24 18:47 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 19:17 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 19:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 19:28 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-28 20:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-28 20:15 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 16:46 ` [ISSUE] The time cost of IOSQE_IO_LINK Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 16:52 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-18 13:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200217120920.GQ14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox