The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Triplett <josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Sébastien Dugué" <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux RT Users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>,
	john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
	Jean Pierre Dion <jean-pierre.dion@bull.net>,
	Gilles Carry <Gilles.Carry@ext.bull.net>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch RT] Fix CFS load balancing for RT tasks
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:13:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1184260438.3000.16.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1184258515.3000.11.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com>

On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 09:41 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:47 +0200, Sébastien Dugué wrote:
> >   there seems to be something wrong with the way the CFS balances (or does not
> > balance) RT tasks. This was evidenced using the sched_football testcase
> > available from the RT wiki (http://rt.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/IBM_Test_Cases)
> > which I modified and attached to this mail.
> > 
> >   The testcase starts a number of threads which fall into 3 categories:
> > 
> > 	1 referee thread: SCHED_FIFO, RT prio 5
> > 	ncpus defensive threads: SCHED_FIFO, RT prio 4
> > 	ncpus offensive threads: SCHED_FIFO, RT prio 3
> > 
> > 	(ncpus being the number of CPUs)
> > 
> >   To make a long story short, the defensive threads should end up distributed
> > among all CPUs, but that's not the case. For example, on a dual HT Xeon box,
> > after task migration stabilizes we have the following running on the different
> > CPUs:
> > 
> >   CPU 0: defense2
> >   CPU 1: referee offense2 offense3 offense4 defense3
> >   CPU 2: offense1
> >   CPU 3: defense1 defense4
> > 
> > which clearly show the imbalance between CPU 2 and CPU 3 where offense1
> > should not be allowed to run while the higher prio defense1 and defense4
> > are sharing the same CPU.
> > 
> >   The following patch fixes this by re-enabling the RT overload detection
> > for the CFS. It may not be the right solution, maybe it should be incorporated
> > into the other load balancing mechanisms. I did not digg deep enough yet
> > to make that call ;-)
> 
> 2.6.21.5-rt20 plus this patch passed 1000 runs of the standard
> sched_football on an 8 processor (quad dual-core) x86-64 box.  Nice
> work.

Hmmm, seems I spoke a bit too soon; due to a bug in the test log
checker, the test failed but the log checker said PASS.  Actual results:
$ grep 'Final ball position' rt-tests.log | sort | uniq -c
    960 Final ball position: 0
     39 Final ball position: 1
      1 Final ball position: 2

So it failed 4% of the runs.  However, it failed much less
spectacularly; rather than overrunning the integer maximum, it only
reached 1-2.  Still a huge improvement despite not solving the problem
completely.

> >   The RT overload mechanism of the O(1) scheduler has not been activated
> > in the new CFS.
> > 
> >   This patch fixes that by inserting calls to inc_rt_tasks() and dec_rt_tasks()
> > in enqueue_task_rt() and dequeue_task_rt() respectively, which enables the
> > balance_rt_tasks() to be run in the rt_overload case.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sébastien Dugué <sebastien.dugue@bull.net>
> 
> Acked-by: Josh Triplett <josh@kernel.org>

Ack still valid despite the above.

- Josh Triplett



  reply	other threads:[~2007-07-12 17:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-11 14:47 [Patch RT] Fix CFS load balancing for RT tasks Sébastien Dugué
2007-07-11 17:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-07-11 17:41   ` Steven Rostedt
2007-07-12  6:56     ` Sébastien Dugué
2007-07-12  6:28   ` Sébastien Dugué
2007-07-12 16:41 ` Josh Triplett
2007-07-12 17:13   ` Josh Triplett [this message]
2007-07-13  7:01     ` Sébastien Dugué
2007-07-13  6:54   ` Sébastien Dugué

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=1184260438.3000.16.camel@josh-work.beaverton.ibm.com \
    --to=josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=Gilles.Carry@ext.bull.net \
    --cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=jean-pierre.dion@bull.net \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sebastien.dugue@bull.net \
    /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