Hi Mikael!
Hi Marcelo!
stumbled repeatedly over the patches (or what remained of them)
from Mikael?, replacing task->processor and friends by inline
functions task_cpu(task), to eliminate them on UP systems ...
my questions:
- is there an up to date patchset?
- is it planned to include this into 2.4.23?
TIA,
Herbert
Herbert =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=F6tzl?= writes:
>
> Hi Mikael!
> Hi Marcelo!
>
> stumbled repeatedly over the patches (or what remained of them)
> from Mikael?, replacing task->processor and friends by inline
> functions task_cpu(task), to eliminate them on UP systems ...
>
> my questions:
> - is there an up to date patchset?
Yes, I've kept it up to date. In fact I've been using it in
every single 2.4 kernel I've built for the last 18+ months.
Lately also on ppc32 and x86-64.
Below is the current UP micro-optimisation patch set for 2.4.22.
It changes p->processor, p->cpus_allowed, and p->cpus_runnable
accesses (reads and writes) to use inline functions. In UP kernels
these reduce to doing nothing or returning a constant.
To keep the patch small, it doesn't change accesses in SMP-only code.
(This is also the reason why p->cpus_runnable only has a wrapper for
updates, since all reads are in SMP-only code.)
/Mikael
diff -ruN linux-2.4.22/fs/proc/array.c linux-2.4.22.up-opt/fs/proc/array.c
--- linux-2.4.22/fs/proc/array.c 2003-06-14 13:30:27.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.4.22.up-opt/fs/proc/array.c 2003-08-27 19:42:34.159566477 +0200
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@
task->nswap,
task->cnswap,
task->exit_signal,
- task->processor);
+ task_cpu(task));
if(mm)
mmput(mm);
return res;
diff -ruN linux-2.4.22/include/linux/sched.h linux-2.4.22.up-opt/include/linux/sched.h
--- linux-2.4.22/include/linux/sched.h 2003-06-14 13:30:29.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.4.22.up-opt/include/linux/sched.h 2003-08-27 19:42:34.161566172 +0200
@@ -559,17 +559,77 @@
return p;
}
+/*
+ * Wrappers for p->processor/cpus_allowed/cpus_runnable access. No-op on UP.
+ */
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+
+static inline int task_cpu(const struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return p->processor;
+}
+
+static inline void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
+{
+ p->processor = cpu;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long task_cpus_allowed(const struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return p->cpus_allowed;
+}
+
+static inline void set_task_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p,
+ unsigned long cpus_allowed)
+{
+ p->cpus_allowed = cpus_allowed;
+}
+
+static inline void set_task_cpus_runnable(struct task_struct *p,
+ unsigned long cpus_runnable)
+{
+ p->cpus_runnable = cpus_runnable;
+}
+
+#else
+
+static inline int task_cpu(const struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static inline void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
+{
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long task_cpus_allowed(const struct task_struct *p)
+{
+ return ~0UL;
+}
+
+static inline void set_task_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p,
+ unsigned long cpus_allowed)
+{
+}
+
+static inline void set_task_cpus_runnable(struct task_struct *p,
+ unsigned long cpus_runnable)
+{
+}
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
+
#define task_has_cpu(tsk) ((tsk)->cpus_runnable != ~0UL)
static inline void task_set_cpu(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned int cpu)
{
- tsk->processor = cpu;
- tsk->cpus_runnable = 1UL << cpu;
+ set_task_cpu(tsk, cpu);
+ set_task_cpus_runnable(tsk, 1UL << cpu);
}
static inline void task_release_cpu(struct task_struct *tsk)
{
- tsk->cpus_runnable = ~0UL;
+ set_task_cpus_runnable(tsk, ~0UL);
}
/* per-UID process charging. */
diff -ruN linux-2.4.22/kernel/sched.c linux-2.4.22.up-opt/kernel/sched.c
--- linux-2.4.22/kernel/sched.c 2003-08-25 20:07:50.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.4.22.up-opt/kernel/sched.c 2003-08-27 19:42:34.163565866 +0200
@@ -359,7 +359,7 @@
if (task_on_runqueue(p))
goto out;
add_to_runqueue(p);
- if (!synchronous || !(p->cpus_allowed & (1UL << smp_processor_id())))
+ if (!synchronous || !(task_cpus_allowed(p) & (1UL << smp_processor_id())))
reschedule_idle(p);
success = 1;
out:
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@
BUG_ON(!current->active_mm);
need_resched_back:
prev = current;
- this_cpu = prev->processor;
+ this_cpu = task_cpu(prev);
if (unlikely(in_interrupt())) {
printk("Scheduling in interrupt\n");
@@ -1364,7 +1364,7 @@
}
sched_data->curr = current;
sched_data->last_schedule = get_cycles();
- clear_bit(current->processor, &wait_init_idle);
+ clear_bit(task_cpu(current), &wait_init_idle);
}
extern void init_timervecs (void);
@@ -1378,7 +1378,7 @@
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
int nr;
- init_task.processor = cpu;
+ set_task_cpu(&init_task, cpu);
for(nr = 0; nr < PIDHASH_SZ; nr++)
pidhash[nr] = NULL;
diff -ruN linux-2.4.22/kernel/softirq.c linux-2.4.22.up-opt/kernel/softirq.c
--- linux-2.4.22/kernel/softirq.c 2002-11-30 17:12:32.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.4.22.up-opt/kernel/softirq.c 2003-08-27 19:42:34.164565713 +0200
@@ -368,7 +368,7 @@
sigfillset(¤t->blocked);
/* Migrate to the right CPU */
- current->cpus_allowed = 1UL << cpu;
+ set_task_cpus_allowed(current, 1UL << cpu);
while (smp_processor_id() != cpu)
schedule();
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:17:38PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Herbert =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=F6tzl?= writes:
> >
> > Hi Mikael!
> > Hi Marcelo!
> >
> > stumbled repeatedly over the patches (or what remained of them)
> > from Mikael?, replacing task->processor and friends by inline
> > functions task_cpu(task), to eliminate them on UP systems ...
> >
> > my questions:
> > - is there an up to date patchset?
>
> Yes, I've kept it up to date. In fact I've been using it in
> every single 2.4 kernel I've built for the last 18+ months.
> Lately also on ppc32 and x86-64.
>
> Below is the current UP micro-optimisation patch set for 2.4.22.
> It changes p->processor, p->cpus_allowed, and p->cpus_runnable
> accesses (reads and writes) to use inline functions. In UP kernels
> these reduce to doing nothing or returning a constant.
>
> To keep the patch small, it doesn't change accesses in SMP-only code.
> (This is also the reason why p->cpus_runnable only has a wrapper for
> updates, since all reads are in SMP-only code.)
good to know ... will use it in my patchset (now with reference ;)
let me know if you add/fix something ...
thanks for the patch,
Herbert
> /Mikael
Am Mit, 2003-08-27 um 20.17 schrieb Mikael Pettersson:
> +#else
> +
> +static inline int task_cpu(const struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned long task_cpus_allowed(const struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + return ~0UL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void set_task_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p,
> + unsigned long cpus_allowed)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +static inline void set_task_cpus_runnable(struct task_struct *p,
> + unsigned long cpus_runnable)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
Shouldn't these be marked const?
--
Servus,
Daniel
Daniel Egger wrote:
> Shouldn't these be marked const?
1. There's no need, because they are inline and simple enough to optimise.
2. GCC seems to ignore const and pure attributes on inline functions,
even when that would enable optimisation that it cannot see from the
function body.
-- Jamie