From: Peter Oskolkov <posk@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Oskolkov <posk@posk.io>,
mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
pjt@google.com, avagin@google.com, jannh@google.com,
tdelisle@uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:33:15 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPNVh5eBJB+QDr+gH4DvK1raho0tQx=w_LUFm5Gq7TVijoKrBg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YefQJXn3x3JJtB1d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:47 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:19:21AM -0800, Peter Oskolkov wrote:
> > ============= worker-to-worker context switches
> >
> > One example: absl::Mutex (https://abseil.io/about/design/mutex) has
> > google-internal extensions that are "fiber aware". More specifically,
> > consider this situation:
> >
> > - worker W1 acqured the mutex and is doing its work
> > - worker W2 calls mutex::lock()
> > mutex::lock(), being aware of workers, understands that W2 is going to sleep;
> > so instead of just doing so, waking the server, and letting
> > the server figure out what to run in place of the sleeping worker,
> > mutex::lock()
> > calls into the userspace scheduler in the context of W2 running, and the
> > userspace scheduler then picks W3 to run and does W2->W3 context switch.
> >
> > The optimization above replaces W2->Server and Server->W3 context switches
> > with a single W2->W3 context switch, which is a material performance gain.
>
> Yes, I've also already reconsidered. Things like pipelines and other
> fixed order scheduling policies will greatly benefit from
> worker-to-worker switching.
>
> But I think all of them are explicit. That is, we can limit the
> ::next_tid usage to sys_umcg_wait() and never look at it for implicit
> blocks.
Yes, of course - when a worker blocks, its server gets notified.
>
> > In addition, when W1 calls mutex::unlock(), the scheduling code determines
> > that W2 is waiting on the mutex, and thus calls W2::wake() from the context of
> > running W1 (you asked earlier why do we need "WAKE_ONLY").
>
> This I'm not at all convinced on. That sounds like it will violate the
> 1:1 thing.
wake_only is a wakeup event, meaning the worker gets added to the wake
queue, not scheduled on a CPU; we don't have to implement it in the
kernel, though - the userspace may keep its own wake queue for workers
like this. So feel free to ignore this operation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-19 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-14 20:44 [RFC][PATCH 0/3] sched: User Managed Concurrency Groups Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-14 20:44 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/3] sched/umcg: add WF_CURRENT_CPU and externise ttwu Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-14 20:44 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/3] x86/uaccess: Implement unsafe_try_cmpxchg_user() Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-20 17:30 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-21 11:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-14 20:44 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/3] sched: User Mode Concurency Groups Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-21 17:19 ` Peter Oskolkov
2022-01-14 14:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-14 15:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-14 17:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-17 11:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-17 12:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-17 12:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-18 10:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-18 18:19 ` Peter Oskolkov
2022-01-19 8:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-19 17:33 ` Peter Oskolkov [this message]
2022-01-19 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-19 8:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-19 17:52 ` Peter Oskolkov
2022-01-20 10:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-01-17 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-24 11:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-14 21:00 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/3] sched: User Managed Concurrency Groups Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 3:46 ` Peter Oskolkov
2021-12-15 10:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 13:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 17:56 ` Peter Oskolkov
2021-12-15 18:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 19:49 ` Peter Oskolkov
2021-12-15 22:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 23:26 ` Peter Oskolkov
2021-12-16 13:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-12-15 18:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 21:04 ` Peter Oskolkov
2021-12-15 23:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 23:31 ` Peter Oskolkov
2021-12-15 10:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-15 13:49 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-12-15 17:54 ` 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='CAPNVh5eBJB+QDr+gH4DvK1raho0tQx=w_LUFm5Gq7TVijoKrBg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=posk@google.com \
--cc=avagin@google.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=posk@posk.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tdelisle@uwaterloo.ca \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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