From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, vatsa <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: properly account IRQ and RT load in SCHED_OTHER load balancing
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:56:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1219323402.8651.126.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48AD63DD.7000701@novell.com>
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 08:47 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > OK, how overboard is this? (utterly uncompiled and such)
> >
> > I realized while trying to do the (soft)irq accounting Ingo asked for,
> > that IRQs can preempt SoftIRQs which can preempt RT tasks.
> >
> > Therefore we actually need to account all these times, so that we can
> > subtract irq time from measured softirq time, etc.
> >
> > So this patch does all that.. we could even use this more accurate time
> > spend on the task delta to drive the scheduler.
> >
> > NOTE - for now I've only considered softirq from hardirq time, as
> > ksoftirqd is its own task and is already accounted the regular way.
> >
>
> Actually, if you really want to get crazy, you could account for each RT
> prio level as well ;)
>
> e.g. RT98 tasks have to account for RT99 + softirqs + irqs, RT97 need to
> look at RT98, 99, softirqs, irqs, etc.
>
> I'm not suggesting we do this, per se. Just food for thought. It
> would have the benefit of allowing us to make even better routing
> decisions for RT tasks. E.g. if cores 2 and 6 both have the lowest
> priority, we currently sort by sched-domain topology, but we could also
> factor in the load that is "above" us.
I'll let you be that crazy ;-) It'd be a 3-rd order placement decision,
I doubt that's going to make a large difference.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-21 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-21 9:18 [PATCH] sched: properly account IRQ and RT load in SCHED_OTHER load balancing Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-21 10:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 11:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 11:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-21 11:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 11:36 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-21 11:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 12:26 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-21 12:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-21 12:47 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-21 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
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=1219323402.8651.126.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.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.