deadline: Allow 0ms deadline latency, increase the read speed Change a timer compare from after to after-equals, thus allowing 0 timeout and making deadline schedule FIFO.

Signed-off-by: xiaobing tu <xiaobing.tu@intel.com>
block: deadline: hardcode magic values from the usual suspects. Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
mutex: dynamically disable mutex spinning at high load Date Thu, 4 Apr 2013 10:54:18 -0400

The Linux mutex code has a MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER configuration
option that was enabled by default in major distributions like Red
Hat. Allowing threads waiting on mutex to spin while the mutex owner
is running will theoretically reduce latency on the acquisition of
mutex at the expense of energy efficiency as the spinning threads
are doing no useful work.

This is not a problem on a lightly loaded system where the CPU may
be idle anyway. On a highly loaded system, the spinning tasks may be
blocking other tasks from running even if they have higher priority
because the spinning was done with preemption disabled.

This patch will disable mutex spinning if the current load is high
enough. The load is considered high if there are 2 or more active tasks
waiting to run on the current CPU. If there is only one task waiting,
it will check the average load at the past minute (calc_load_tasks).
If it is more than double the number of active CPUs, the load is
considered high too.  This is a rather simple metric that does not
incur that much additional overhead.

The AIM7 benchmarks were run on 3.7.10 derived kernels to show the
performance changes with this patch on a 8-socket 80-core system
with hyperthreading off.  The table below shows the mean % change
in performance over a range of users for some AIM7 workloads with
just the less atomic operation patch (patch 1) vs the less atomic
operation patch plus this one (patches 1+3).

+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
|   Workload   | mean % change   | mean % change   | mean % change   |
|              | 10-100 users    | 200-1000 users  | 1100-2000 users |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| alltests     |      0.0%       |     -0.1%       |    +5.0%        |
| five_sec     |     +1.5%       |     +1.3%       |    +1.3%        |
| fserver      |     +1.5%       |    +25.4%       |    +9.6%        |
| high_systime |     +0.1%       |      0.0%       |    +0.8%        |
| new_fserver  |     +0.2%       |    +11.9%       |   +14.1%        |
| shared       |     -1.2%       |     +0.3%       |    +1.8%        |
| short        |     +6.4%       |     +2.5%       |    +3.0%        |
+--------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
It can be seen that this patch provides some big performance
improvement for the fserver and new_fserver workloads while is still
generally positive for the other AIM7 workloads.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>
modified for tuna kernel from LKML

Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
hrtimer: Consider preemption when migrating hrtimer cpu_bases When switching to a new cpu_base in switch_hrtimer_base(), we briefly enable preemption by unlocking the cpu_base lock in two places. During this interval it's possible for the running thread to be swapped to a different CPU.

Consider the following example:

CPU #0                                 CPU #1
----                                   ----
hrtimer_start()                        ...
 lock_hrtimer_base()
 switch_hrtimer_base()
  this_cpu = 0;
  target_cpu_base = 0;
  raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock)
<migrate to CPU 1>
...                                    this_cpu == 0
                                       cpu == this_cpu
                                       timer->base = CPU #0
                                       timer->base != LOCAL_CPU

Since the cached this_cpu is no longer accurate, we'll skip the
hrtimer_check_target() check. Once we eventually go to program
the hardware, we'll decide not to do so since it knows the real
CPU that we're running on is not the same as the chosen base. As
a consequence, we may end up missing the hrtimer's deadline.

Fix this by updating the local CPU number each time we retake a
cpu_base lock in switch_hrtimer_base().

Another possibility is to disable preemption across the whole of
switch_hrtimer_base.  This looks suboptimal since preemption
would be disabled while waiting for lock(s).

Change-Id: I3f76d528ab2288ef5f950f4d048e7f3fa6cf1228
Signed-off-by: Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
hrtimer: Prevent enqueue of hrtimer on dead CPU When switching the hrtimer cpu_base, we briefly allow for preemption to become enabled by unlocking the cpu_base lock. During this time, the CPU corresponding to the new cpu_base that was selected may in fact go offline. In this scenario, the hrtimer is enqueued to a CPU that's not online, and therefore it never fires.

As an example, consider this example:

CPU #0                          CPU #1
----                            ----
...                             hrtimer_start()
                                 lock_hrtimer_base()
                                 switch_hrtimer_base()
                                  cpu = hrtimer_get_target() -> 1
                                  spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock)
                                <migrate thread to CPU #0>
                                <offline>
spin_lock(&new_base->lock)
this_cpu = 0
cpu != this_cpu
enqueue_hrtimer(cpu_base #1)

To prevent this scenario, verify that the CPU corresponding to
the new cpu_base is indeed online before selecting it in
hrtimer_switch_base(). If it's not online, fallback to using the
base of the current CPU.

Change-Id: I6359cb299ba7e08abf25d3360fcdd925b4c03b69
Signed-off-by: Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>