All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 1 RT task blocks 4-core machine ?
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:42:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CB0A998.3020407@sssup.it> (raw)

Peter wrote:
>  On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 00:26 +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
>  >  A possible explanation might be that the CFS load balancing logic sees
>  >  my only active task (e.g., the ssh server or shell etc.) as running
>  >  alone on its core, and does not detect that it is inhibited to actually
>  >  run due to RT tasks on the same core. Therefore, it will not migrate
>  >  the task to the free cores. Does this explanation make sense
>  >  or is it completely wrong ?
>
>  Possibly, its got some logic to detect this but maybe it gets confused
>  still, in particular look at the adaptive cpu_power in
>  update_cpu_power() and calling functions.

Ok, I'll have a look (when I have some time :-( ), thanks.

>  >  Also, I'd like to hear whether this is considered the "normal/desired"
>  >  behavior of intermixing RT and non-RT tasks.
>
>  Pegging a cpu using sched_fifo/rr pretty much means you get to keep the
>  pieces, if it works nice, if you can make it work better kudos, but no
>  polling from sched_fifo/rr is not something that is considered sane for
>  the general health of your system.

Sure, I was not thinking to push/pull across heterogeneous scheduling
classes, but rather to simply account for the proper per-CPU tasks count
and load (including all the tasks comprising RT ones) when load-balancing
in CFS. Perhaps, you mean, e.g., if a RT task ends, the CPU would go idle
and it would be supposed to pull ? Just we don't do that, and at the next
load-balancing decision things would be fixed up (please, consider I don't
know the CFS load balancer so well).

So, for example, in addition to fix the reported issue, we'd get also that,
when pinning a heavy RT workload on a CPU, CFS tasks would migrate to other
CPUs, if available. Again, that doesn't need to be instantaneous (push), but
it could happen later when the CFS load-balancer is invoked (is it invoked
periodically, as of now ?).

Thanks,

	T.

-- 
Tommaso Cucinotta, Computer Engineering PhD, Researcher
ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
Tel +39 050 882 024, Fax +39 050 882 003
http://retis.sssup.it/people/tommaso


             reply	other threads:[~2010-10-09 18:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-10-09 17:42 Tommaso Cucinotta [this message]
2010-10-11  7:53 ` 1 RT task blocks 4-core machine ? Peter Zijlstra
     [not found] <AANLkTim2icGqFWB1S6TVcQwmo+sCcGdNDPO3s8LFqzR=@mail.gmail.com>
2010-10-04 22:26 ` Tommaso Cucinotta
2010-10-06 13:34   ` Peter Zijlstra

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=4CB0A998.3020407@sssup.it \
    --to=tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /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.