All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [sched] 143e1e28cb4: +17.9% aim7.jobs-per-min, -9.7% hackbench.throughput
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:29:19 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53E99117.9010500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140811133352.GC9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2520 bytes --]

On 08/11/2014 07:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Now I think I see why this is; we've reduced load balancing frequency
> significantly on this machine due to:

We have also changed the value of busy_factor to 32 from 64 across all
domains. This would contribute to increased frequency of load balancing?

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 
> 
> -#define SD_SIBLING_INIT (struct sched_domain) {                                \
> -       .min_interval           = 1,                                    \
> -       .max_interval           = 2,                                    \
> 
> 
> -#define SD_MC_INIT (struct sched_domain) {                             \
> -       .min_interval           = 1,                                    \
> -       .max_interval           = 4,                                    \
> 
> 
> -#define SD_CPU_INIT (struct sched_domain) {                            \
> -       .min_interval           = 1,                                    \
> -       .max_interval           = 4,                                    \
> 
> 
>         *sd = (struct sched_domain){
>                 .min_interval           = sd_weight,
>                 .max_interval           = 2*sd_weight,
> 
> Which both increased the min and max value significantly for all domains
> involved.
> 
> That said; I think we might want to do something like the below; I can
> imagine decreasing load balancing too much will negatively impact other
> workloads.
> 
> Maybe slightly modified to make sure the first domain has a min_interval
> of 1.
> 
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 1211575a2208..67ed5d854da1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -6049,8 +6049,8 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int cpu)
>  		sd_flags &= ~TOPOLOGY_SD_FLAGS;
>  
>  	*sd = (struct sched_domain){
> -		.min_interval		= sd_weight,
> -		.max_interval		= 2*sd_weight,
> +		.min_interval		= max(1, sd_weight/2),
> +		.max_interval		= sd_weight,
>  		.busy_factor		= 32,
>  		.imbalance_pct		= 125,
>  
> @@ -6076,7 +6076,7 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int cpu)
>  					,
>  
>  		.last_balance		= jiffies,
> -		.balance_interval	= sd_weight,
> +		.balance_interval	= max(1, sd_weight/2),
>  		.smt_gain		= 0,
>  		.max_newidle_lb_cost	= 0,
>  		.next_decay_max_lb_cost	= jiffies,
> 


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@01.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [sched] 143e1e28cb4: +17.9% aim7.jobs-per-min, -9.7% hackbench.throughput
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:29:19 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53E99117.9010500@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140811133352.GC9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 08/11/2014 07:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Now I think I see why this is; we've reduced load balancing frequency
> significantly on this machine due to:

We have also changed the value of busy_factor to 32 from 64 across all
domains. This would contribute to increased frequency of load balancing?

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 
> 
> -#define SD_SIBLING_INIT (struct sched_domain) {                                \
> -       .min_interval           = 1,                                    \
> -       .max_interval           = 2,                                    \
> 
> 
> -#define SD_MC_INIT (struct sched_domain) {                             \
> -       .min_interval           = 1,                                    \
> -       .max_interval           = 4,                                    \
> 
> 
> -#define SD_CPU_INIT (struct sched_domain) {                            \
> -       .min_interval           = 1,                                    \
> -       .max_interval           = 4,                                    \
> 
> 
>         *sd = (struct sched_domain){
>                 .min_interval           = sd_weight,
>                 .max_interval           = 2*sd_weight,
> 
> Which both increased the min and max value significantly for all domains
> involved.
> 
> That said; I think we might want to do something like the below; I can
> imagine decreasing load balancing too much will negatively impact other
> workloads.
> 
> Maybe slightly modified to make sure the first domain has a min_interval
> of 1.
> 
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 1211575a2208..67ed5d854da1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -6049,8 +6049,8 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int cpu)
>  		sd_flags &= ~TOPOLOGY_SD_FLAGS;
>  
>  	*sd = (struct sched_domain){
> -		.min_interval		= sd_weight,
> -		.max_interval		= 2*sd_weight,
> +		.min_interval		= max(1, sd_weight/2),
> +		.max_interval		= sd_weight,
>  		.busy_factor		= 32,
>  		.imbalance_pct		= 125,
>  
> @@ -6076,7 +6076,7 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl, int cpu)
>  					,
>  
>  		.last_balance		= jiffies,
> -		.balance_interval	= sd_weight,
> +		.balance_interval	= max(1, sd_weight/2),
>  		.smt_gain		= 0,
>  		.max_newidle_lb_cost	= 0,
>  		.next_decay_max_lb_cost	= jiffies,
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-12  3:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-10  4:41 [sched] 143e1e28cb4: +17.9% aim7.jobs-per-min, -9.7% hackbench.throughput Fengguang Wu
2014-08-10  4:41 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-10  7:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-10  7:59   ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-10 10:54   ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-10 10:54     ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-10 15:05     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-10 15:05       ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-10 15:16       ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-10 15:16         ` Ingo Molnar
2014-08-11  1:23       ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-11  1:23         ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-12 14:57         ` kodiak furr
2014-08-12 14:57           ` kodiak furr
2014-08-11 13:33     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-11 13:33       ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-12  3:59       ` Preeti U Murthy [this message]
2014-08-12  3:59         ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-08-12  6:41         ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-12  6:41           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-12 14:30       ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-12 14:30         ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-25 13:47       ` Vincent Guittot
2014-08-25 13:47         ` 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=53E99117.9010500@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.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.