From: Yuyang du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com, arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com,
len.brown@intel.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
alan.cox@intel.com
Subject: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:37:21 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140326183721.GC24116@intel.com> (raw)
Hi all,
This is continued after the first RFC about splitting the scheduler. Still
work-in-progress, and call for feedback.
The question addressed here is how load balance should be changed. And I think
the question then goes to how to *reuse* common code as much as possible and
meanwhile be able to serve various objectives.
So these are the basic semantics needed in current load balance:
1. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu push task on that_cpu to [ third_cpu ]
Examples are fork/exec/wakeup. Task is determined by the balance point in
question. And that_cpu is determined by task.
2. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu pull [ task/tasks ] on [ that_cpu ] to
this_cpu
Examples are other idle/periodic/nohz balance, and active_load_balance in
ASYM_PACKING (pull first and then a push).
3. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu kick [ that_cpu/those_cpus ] to do [ what
] balance
Examples are nohz idle balance and active balance.
To make the above more general, we need to abstract more:
1. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu push task on that_cpu to [ third_cpu ] in
[ cpu_mask ]
2. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu [ do | skip ] pull [task/tasks ] on [
that_cpu ] in [ cpu_mask ] to this_cpu
3. [ At balance point ] on this_cpu kick [ that_cpu/those_cpus ] in [ cpu_mask
] to do nohz idle balance
So essentially, we give them choice or restrict the scope for them.
Then instead of an all-in-one load_balance class, we define pull or push
classes:
struct push_class:
int (*which_third_cpu);
struct cpumask * (*which_cpu_mask);
struct pull_class:
int (*skip);
int (*which_that_cpu);
struct task_struct * (*which_task);
struct cpumask* (*which_cpu_mask);
Last but not least, currently we configure domain by flags/parameters, how
about attaching push/pull classes directly to them as struct members? So those
classes are responsible specially for its riding domain's "well-being".
Thanks,
Yuyang
next reply other threads:[~2014-03-27 2:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-26 18:37 Yuyang du [this message]
2014-03-27 4:57 ` [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves Mike Galbraith
2014-03-27 7:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-03-27 22:13 ` Yuyang Du
2014-03-28 6:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-03-27 23:00 ` Yuyang Du
2014-03-28 7:05 ` Mike Galbraith
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=20140326183721.GC24116@intel.com \
--to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
--cc=alan.cox@intel.com \
--cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).