Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933508AbYBUUjU (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:39:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758505AbYBUUi5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:38:57 -0500 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:22529 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758598AbYBUUiz (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:38:55 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:38:51 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Dhaval Giani , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Make yield_task_fair more efficient Message-ID: <20080221203849.GU23197@kernel.dk> References: <47BD2A99.3010608@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1203583439.6243.119.camel@lappy> <47BD3B56.3090404@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080221090430.GA20055@elte.hu> <47BD44FF.7070104@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1203586980.6243.124.camel@lappy> <47BD479F.6070901@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1203588090.6243.128.camel@lappy> <47BD4D48.4080606@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1203592374.6243.138.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1203592374.6243.138.camel@lappy> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1569 Lines: 39 On Thu, Feb 21 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 15:37 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > You use the empty pointer (missing right child), so why do we need a list. May > > be I am missing something. > > A fully threaded tree also has back-pointer to traverse backwards > through the ordered elements. > > That said, overloading the right child pointer might not be the best > thing for the linux kernel, as it will impact all the rb-tree lookups > which are open-coded and often performance critical (this is the reason > the colour isn't bit encoded in either of the child pointers either). > > But if you only want a uni directional thread, I guess we can stick it > in the unsigned long we use for the node colour. > > Still, perhaps it's worth it to grow rb_node to 4 words and do the fully > threaded thing as there are also a lot of rb_prev() users in the kernel. > Who knows.. > > Anyway, I agree that improving rb_next() is worth looking into for the > scheduler. For the IO scheduler as well, it's used quite extensively! So speeding up rb_next() would definitely help, as it's typically invoked for every bio queued (attempting to back merge with the next request). CFQ and AS additionally does an rb_next() and rb_prev() when trying to decide which request to do next. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/