From: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched: make fix_small_imbalance work with asymmetric packing
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:06:31 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10091.1271307991@neuling.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com>
In message <1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> you wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 05:29 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:21 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > > With the asymmetric packing infrastructure, fix_small_imbalance is
> > > causing idle higher threads to pull tasks off lower threads.
> > >
> > > This is being caused by an off-by-one error.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> > > ---
> > > I'm not sure this is the right fix but without it, higher threads pull
> > > tasks off the lower threads, then the packing pulls it back down, etc
> > > etc and tasks bounce around constantly.
> >
> > Would help if you expand upon the why/how it manages to get pulled up.
> >
> > I can't immediately spot anything wrong with the patch, but then that
> > isn't my favourite piece of code either.. Suresh, any comments?
> >
>
> Sorry didn't pay much attention to this patchset. But based on the
> comments from Michael and looking at this patchset, it has SMT/MC
> implications. I will review and run some tests and get back in a day.
>
> As far as this particular patch is concerned, original code is coming
> from Ingo's original CFS code commit (dd41f596) and the below hunk
> pretty much explains what the change is about.
>
> - if (max_load - this_load >= busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
> + if (max_load - this_load + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE_FUZZ >=
> + busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
>
> So the below proposed change will probably break what the above
> mentioned commit was trying to achieve, which is: for fairness reasons
> we were bouncing the small extra load (between the max_load and
> this_load) around.
Actually, you can drop this patch.
In the process of clarifying why it was needed for the changelog, I
discovered I don't actually need it.
Sorry about that.
Mikey
>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > kernel/sched_fair.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > > @@ -2652,7 +2652,7 @@ static inline void fix_small_imbalance(s
> > > * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
> > > scaled_busy_load_per_task /= sds->busiest->cpu_power;
> > >
> > > - if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >=
> > > + if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >
> > > (scaled_busy_load_per_task * imbn)) {
> > > *imbalance = sds->busiest_load_per_task;
> > > return;
> >
>
> thanks,
> suresh
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-15 5:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-09 6:21 [PATCH 0/5] sched: asymmetrical packing for POWER7 SMT4 Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched: add asymmetric packing option for sibling domain Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14 6:09 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 3/5] powerpc: enabled asymmetric SMT scheduling on POWER7 Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:48 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched: fix capacity calculations for SMT4 Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14 4:28 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-16 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-18 21:34 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-19 14:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-19 20:45 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-29 6:55 ` Michael Neuling
2010-05-31 8:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 22:52 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-06-03 8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-07 15:06 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched: Mark the balance type for use in need_active_balance() Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-15 4:15 ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched: make fix_small_imbalance work with asymmetric packing Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14 1:31 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-04-15 5:06 ` Michael Neuling [this message]
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=10091.1271307991@neuling.org \
--to=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@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).