From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 14:55:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140901125505.GK27892@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1409255196.4945.7.camel@j-VirtualBox>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:46:36PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-08-27 at 16:32 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > If there are multiple non-forced updates, option 1's error seems to
> > accumulate and non-bounded as we do not actually update?
> > Is this a concern?
>
> It should be fine. Once the delta is large enough, we will end up doing
> the update anyway.
Well, the thing is you can have nr_cpus * 12.5% of outstanding delta;
that might be a lot, esp on the large machines.
Now there's two problems with all this; the first is the relative
threshold, typically such per-cpu things have a fixed update threshold,
this makes it much easier to qualify the actual error.
Secondly the indeed the nr_cpus in the error bound. Some things; like
the proportion code scale the threshold by log2(nr_cpus) in an attempt
to do something sensible there.
But yes, unbounded errors here are a problem, sure relaxing the updates
makes things go fast, they also make things go skew.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-01 12:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-26 23:11 [PATCH v2] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load Jason Low
2014-08-26 23:24 ` Paul Turner
2014-08-27 17:34 ` Jason Low
2014-08-27 23:32 ` Tim Chen
2014-08-28 19:46 ` Jason Low
2014-09-01 12:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-09-02 7:41 ` Jason Low
2014-09-03 11:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-09-09 14:52 ` [tip:sched/core] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load() tip-bot for Jason Low
2014-08-27 19:18 ` [PATCH RESULT] sched: Rewrite per entity runnable load average tracking v5 Yuyang Du
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=20140901125505.GK27892@worktop.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.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.