public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, vatsa <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: properly account IRQ and RT load in SCHED_OTHER load balancing
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:56:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1219323402.8651.126.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48AD63DD.7000701@novell.com>

On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 08:47 -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > OK, how overboard is this? (utterly uncompiled and such)
> >
> > I realized while trying to do the (soft)irq accounting Ingo asked for,
> > that IRQs can preempt SoftIRQs which can preempt RT tasks.
> >
> > Therefore we actually need to account all these times, so that we can
> > subtract irq time from measured softirq time, etc.
> >
> > So this patch does all that.. we could even use this more accurate time
> > spend on the task delta to drive the scheduler.
> >
> > NOTE - for now I've only considered softirq from hardirq time, as
> > ksoftirqd is its own task and is already accounted the regular way.
> >   
> 
> Actually, if you really want to get crazy, you could account for each RT 
> prio level as well ;)
> 
> e.g. RT98 tasks have to account for RT99 + softirqs + irqs, RT97 need to 
> look at RT98, 99, softirqs, irqs, etc.
> 
> I'm not suggesting we do this, per se.   Just food for thought.  It 
> would have the benefit of allowing us to make even better routing 
> decisions for RT tasks.  E.g. if cores 2 and 6 both have the lowest 
> priority, we currently sort by sched-domain topology, but we could also 
> factor in the load that is "above" us.

I'll let you be that crazy ;-) It'd be a 3-rd order placement decision,
I doubt that's going to make a large difference.


      reply	other threads:[~2008-08-21 12:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-08-21  9:18 [PATCH] sched: properly account IRQ and RT load in SCHED_OTHER load balancing Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-21 10:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 11:17   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 11:22     ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-21 11:40       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 11:36 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-21 11:41   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-08-21 12:26     ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-21 12:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-21 12:47   ` Gregory Haskins
2008-08-21 12:56     ` Peter Zijlstra [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=1219323402.8651.126.camel@twins \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ghaskins@novell.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=vatsa@in.ibm.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