Re: [ANNOUNCE] Staircase Deadline cpu scheduler version 0.45

[Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>]

On Sunday 22 April 2007 19:14, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 06:53:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 April 2007 18:06, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 05:31:58PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:27, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 22 April 2007 17:00, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 02:41:48PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > > > > > A significant bugfix for SMP balancing was just posted for the
> > > > > > > staircase deadline cpu scheduler which improves behaviour
> > > > > > > dramatically on any SMP machine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks to Willy Tarreau for noticing likely fault point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also requested was a version in the Makefile so this version of
> > > > > > > the patch adds -sd045 to the kernel version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Con, I'm sorry, but it is worse with this one :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Well that was quick testing, thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The lag when typing in xterms is even more noticeable and vmstat
> > > > > > output oscillates between 8 and 65, with idle rates around 50%,
> > > > > > as you can see below :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Renicing X or not does not change anything here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I suspect that the bug you fixed was hiding another one :-/
> > > > > > If you want me to test another patch, feel free to ask.
> > > >
> > > > Just as a debug point could you please try this patch? Thanks.
> > >
> > > OK, this time, the ocbench took ages to start. They appeared
> > > immediately but very few of them (less than 8 out of 64) really started
> > > to work. The system remained very responsive and smooth during the
> > > test. But I guess I know why : all the load was sent to CPU 0 :
> >
> > Shouldn't have affected smp balancing at all, but try this on top of the
> > ontop please? Thanks
>
> Does not change anything. There clearly is a huge regression somewhere :-/
> The second CPU is not used by ocbench, and again, out of 64 tasks, only
> a small bunch (between 4 and 8) do something.
>
> Con, you should review the changes between 0.44 and 0.45, I think you
> introduced a bug which broke fairness while fixing another one.

Ok I was able to find time on dual core and could reproduce your problem. 
Testing something now that I think might be responsible.

-- 
-ck