From: alex.shi@intel.com (Alex Shi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] sched: pack the idle load balance
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:56:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51527C17.3070901@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDo3dmEZU-R62unQH9j5CxZWJj+Ws5CTBptOzTohkNJMA@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/26/2013 11:55 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > So extrapolating that to a 4+4 big-little you'd get something like:
>> >
>> > | little A9 || big A15 |
>> > | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 || 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
>> > ------+---+---+---+---++---+---+---+---+
>> > buddy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 || 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
>> >
>> > Right?
> yes
>
>> >
>> > So supposing the current ILB is 6, we'll only check 4, not 0-3, even
>> > though there might be a perfectly idle cpu in there.
> We will check 4,5,7 at MC level in order to pack in the group of A15
> (because they are not sharing the same power domain). If none of them
> are idle, we will look at CPU level and will check CPUs 0-3.
So you increase a fixed step here.
>
>> >
>> > Also, your scheme fails to pack when cpus 0,4 are filled, even when
>> > there's idle cores around.
> The primary target is to pack the tasks only when we are in a not busy
> system so you will have a power improvement without performance
> decrease. is_light_task function returns false and is_buddy_busy
> function true before the buddy is fully loaded and the scheduler will
> fall back into the default behavior which spreads tasks and races to
> idle.
>
> We can extend the buddy CPU and the packing mechanism to fill one CPU
> before filling another buddy but it's not always the best choice for
> performance and/or power and thus it will imply to have a knob to
> select this full packing mode.
Just one buddy to pack tasks for whole level cpus definitely has
scalability problem. That is not good for powersaving in most of scenarios.
--
Thanks Alex
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org,
linux@arm.linux.org.uk, pjt@google.com, santosh.shilimkar@ti.com,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chander.kashyap@linaro.org,
cmetcalf@tilera.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, len.brown@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
amit.kucheria@linaro.org, corbet@lwn.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] sched: pack the idle load balance
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:56:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51527C17.3070901@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDo3dmEZU-R62unQH9j5CxZWJj+Ws5CTBptOzTohkNJMA@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/26/2013 11:55 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > So extrapolating that to a 4+4 big-little you'd get something like:
>> >
>> > | little A9 || big A15 |
>> > | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 || 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
>> > ------+---+---+---+---++---+---+---+---+
>> > buddy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 || 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
>> >
>> > Right?
> yes
>
>> >
>> > So supposing the current ILB is 6, we'll only check 4, not 0-3, even
>> > though there might be a perfectly idle cpu in there.
> We will check 4,5,7 at MC level in order to pack in the group of A15
> (because they are not sharing the same power domain). If none of them
> are idle, we will look at CPU level and will check CPUs 0-3.
So you increase a fixed step here.
>
>> >
>> > Also, your scheme fails to pack when cpus 0,4 are filled, even when
>> > there's idle cores around.
> The primary target is to pack the tasks only when we are in a not busy
> system so you will have a power improvement without performance
> decrease. is_light_task function returns false and is_buddy_busy
> function true before the buddy is fully loaded and the scheduler will
> fall back into the default behavior which spreads tasks and races to
> idle.
>
> We can extend the buddy CPU and the packing mechanism to fill one CPU
> before filling another buddy but it's not always the best choice for
> performance and/or power and thus it will imply to have a knob to
> select this full packing mode.
Just one buddy to pack tasks for whole level cpus definitely has
scalability problem. That is not good for powersaving in most of scenarios.
--
Thanks Alex
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-27 4:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-22 12:25 [RFC PATCH v3 0/6] sched: packing small tasks Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/6] Revert "sched: Introduce temporary FAIR_GROUP_SCHED dependency for load-tracking" Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] sched: add a new SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN flag for sched_domain Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/6] sched: pack small tasks Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 10:21 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-27 10:21 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-27 11:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 11:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-04-26 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-26 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-26 11:34 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-04-26 11:34 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-04-26 10:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-26 10:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-26 10:32 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-26 10:32 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-26 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 13:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 13:00 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 4:33 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-27 4:33 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-27 4:48 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-27 4:48 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-27 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 8:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 13:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 13:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 15:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-03-26 15:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-03-27 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 8:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 8:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 8:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 9:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 11:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-03-27 14:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 16:36 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-03-27 17:18 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-03-27 17:18 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-03-27 17:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-03-27 17:37 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-03-27 17:20 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 18:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-03-27 15:37 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-03-27 15:37 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-03-22 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/6] sched: secure access to other CPU statistics Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 12:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 12:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 13:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 13:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 5/6] sched: pack the idle load balance Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 12:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 14:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 14:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 14:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-26 15:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-26 15:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 4:56 ` Alex Shi [this message]
2013-03-27 4:56 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-27 8:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 8:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 8:47 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-27 8:47 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-27 10:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 10:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-27 13:32 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-27 13:32 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-27 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-03-27 8:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-05 11:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-04-05 11:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-04-22 5:45 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-22 5:45 ` Preeti U Murthy
[not found] ` <CAKfTPtCCCifC=c+xjjnAH_HSqkR80PiQoddQKXPHuZwZawbvcA@mail.gmail.com>
2013-04-23 2:23 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-23 2:23 ` Alex Shi
2013-04-23 4:57 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-23 4:57 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-23 15:30 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-04-23 15:30 ` Arjan van de Ven
2013-04-26 10:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-26 10:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-04-23 4:36 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-04-23 4:36 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-22 12:25 ` [RFC PATCH v3 6/6] ARM: sched: clear SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN Vincent Guittot
2013-03-22 12:25 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-23 11:55 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/6] sched: packing small tasks Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-23 11:55 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-25 9:58 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-03-25 9:58 ` Vincent Guittot
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=51527C17.3070901@intel.com \
--to=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.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.