From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [BUG] idle_balance() does not call load_balance_newidle()
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:52:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081209082211.GA29340@dirshya.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081209063448.GA17706@elte.hu>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> [2008-12-09 07:34:48]:
>
> * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> [2008-12-08 16:49:39]:
> >
> > >
> > > * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > load_balance_newidle() does not get called if SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is
> > > > set at higher level domain (3-CPU) and not in low level domain (2-MC).
> > > >
> > > > pulled_task is initialised to -1 and checked for non-zero which is
> > > > always true if the lowest level sched_domain does not have
> > > > SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE flag set.
> > > >
> > > > Trivial fix to initialise pulled_task to zero.
> > > > Patch against 2.6.28-rc7
> > >
> > > applied to tip/sched/core, thanks! (Not for v2.6.28 because this could
> > > affect performance.)
> >
> > Thanks Ingo. This patch does not change any functionality in v2.6.28
> > and hence will not affect performance. The SD flags are not touched. I
> > found this bug while setting different SD flags at MC level and CPU
> > level in my power saving balance patches.
>
> if it does not change any functionality then we would not be doing the
> change, right?
:)
> It does change functionality, because:
>
> > > > load_balance_newidle() does not get called if SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is
> > > > set at higher level domain (3-CPU) and not in low level domain
> > > > (2-MC).
>
> even though it's a bug fix, it affects how the SD flags are interpreted
> and acted upon by the load balancer - i.e. the change can impact
> performance.
Agreed. In my test setup with two levels of sched_domains,
SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE has not been set in both CPU level and MC level
starting from 2.6.28-rc4. In a setup with more levels of
sched_domains and if the higher levels have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set,
then we will have a functional impact.
You are right in queueing it for 2.6.29.
Thanks for the clarification.
--Vaidy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-09 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-08 15:22 [BUG] idle_balance() does not call load_balance_newidle() Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-08 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-08 15:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-09 4:07 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-09 6:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-09 8:22 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan [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=20081209082211.GA29340@dirshya.in.ibm.com \
--to=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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.