From: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched: make fix_small_imbalance work with asymmetric packing
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:06:31 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10091.1271307991@neuling.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com>
In message <1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> you wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 05:29 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:21 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > With the asymmetric packing infrastructure, fix_small_imbalance is
> > > causing idle higher threads to pull tasks off lower threads.
> > >
> > > This is being caused by an off-by-one error.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> > > ---
> > > I'm not sure this is the right fix but without it, higher threads pull
> > > tasks off the lower threads, then the packing pulls it back down, etc
> > > etc and tasks bounce around constantly.
> >
> > Would help if you expand upon the why/how it manages to get pulled up.
> >
> > I can't immediately spot anything wrong with the patch, but then that
> > isn't my favourite piece of code either.. Suresh, any comments?
> >
>
> Sorry didn't pay much attention to this patchset. But based on the
> comments from Michael and looking at this patchset, it has SMT/MC
> implications. I will review and run some tests and get back in a day.
>
> As far as this particular patch is concerned, original code is coming
> from Ingo's original CFS code commit (dd41f596) and the below hunk
> pretty much explains what the change is about.
>
> - if (max_load - this_load >= busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
> + if (max_load - this_load + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE_FUZZ >=
> + busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
>
> So the below proposed change will probably break what the above
> mentioned commit was trying to achieve, which is: for fairness reasons
> we were bouncing the small extra load (between the max_load and
> this_load) around.
Actually, you can drop this patch.
In the process of clarifying why it was needed for the changelog, I
discovered I don't actually need it.
Sorry about that.
Mikey
>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > @@ -2652,7 +2652,7 @@ static inline void fix_small_imbalance(s
> > > * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
> > > scaled_busy_load_per_task /= sds->busiest->cpu_power;
> > >
> > > - if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >=
> > > + if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >
> > > (scaled_busy_load_per_task * imbn)) {
> > > *imbalance = sds->busiest_load_per_task;
> > > return;
> >
>
> thanks,
> suresh
>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched: make fix_small_imbalance work with asymmetric packing
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:06:31 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10091.1271307991@neuling.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com>
In message <1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> you wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 05:29 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:21 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > With the asymmetric packing infrastructure, fix_small_imbalance is
> > > causing idle higher threads to pull tasks off lower threads.
> > >
> > > This is being caused by an off-by-one error.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> > > ---
> > > I'm not sure this is the right fix but without it, higher threads pull
> > > tasks off the lower threads, then the packing pulls it back down, etc
> > > etc and tasks bounce around constantly.
> >
> > Would help if you expand upon the why/how it manages to get pulled up.
> >
> > I can't immediately spot anything wrong with the patch, but then that
> > isn't my favourite piece of code either.. Suresh, any comments?
> >
>
> Sorry didn't pay much attention to this patchset. But based on the
> comments from Michael and looking at this patchset, it has SMT/MC
> implications. I will review and run some tests and get back in a day.
>
> As far as this particular patch is concerned, original code is coming
> from Ingo's original CFS code commit (dd41f596) and the below hunk
> pretty much explains what the change is about.
>
> - if (max_load - this_load >= busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
> + if (max_load - this_load + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE_FUZZ >=
> + busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
>
> So the below proposed change will probably break what the above
> mentioned commit was trying to achieve, which is: for fairness reasons
> we were bouncing the small extra load (between the max_load and
> this_load) around.
Actually, you can drop this patch.
In the process of clarifying why it was needed for the changelog, I
discovered I don't actually need it.
Sorry about that.
Mikey
>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > @@ -2652,7 +2652,7 @@ static inline void fix_small_imbalance(s
> > > * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
> > > scaled_busy_load_per_task /= sds->busiest->cpu_power;
> > >
> > > - if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >=
> > > + if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >
> > > (scaled_busy_load_per_task * imbn)) {
> > > *imbalance = sds->busiest_load_per_task;
> > > return;
> >
>
> thanks,
> suresh
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-15 5:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-09 6:21 [PATCH 0/5] sched: asymmetrical packing for POWER7 SMT4 Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched: add asymmetric packing option for sibling domain Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14 6:09 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-14 6:09 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 3/5] powerpc: enabled asymmetric SMT scheduling on POWER7 Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:48 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:48 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched: Mark the balance type for use in need_active_balance() Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-15 4:15 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-15 4:15 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched: fix capacity calculations for SMT4 Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14 4:28 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-14 4:28 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-16 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-16 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-18 21:34 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-18 21:34 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-19 14:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-19 14:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-19 20:45 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-19 20:45 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-29 6:55 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-29 6:55 ` Michael Neuling
2010-05-31 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-31 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 22:52 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-06-01 22:52 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-06-03 8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-03 8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-07 15:06 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-06-07 15:06 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched: make fix_small_imbalance work with asymmetric packing Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14 1:31 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-14 1:31 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-15 5:06 ` Michael Neuling [this message]
2010-04-15 5:06 ` Michael Neuling
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=10091.1271307991@neuling.org \
--to=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.