From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@kernel.org, pjt@google.com, efault@gmx.de,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched, fair: Let minimally loaded cpu balance the group
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 18:09:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1336147765.6509.41.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1336089945.28674.460.camel@sbsiddha-desk.sc.intel.com>
On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 17:05 -0700, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 16:04 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2012-05-02 12:31:30]:
> >
> > > > IOW :
> > > >
> > > > balance_load = 0 iff idle_cpu(i) ??
> > >
> > > I think so, even for !0 load_idx, load will only reach zero when we're
> > > idle, just takes longer.
> >
> > Right ...so should we force it to select a idle_cpu by having
> > balance_load = 0 for a idle cpu (ignoring what target_load(i, load_idx)
> > told us as its load?
>
> I think Peter is trying to find the leastly loaded among idle cpu's (in
> other words the longest idle cpu ;)
Nah, Peter isn't trying to do anything smart like that, he's just trying
to pick the least loaded when they're all busy or any idle otherwise.
Afaict the code as it is today is the worst possible choice, always
picking the same (first) will result in that one being the busiest at
all times.
I mean anything will converge (eventually) due to the lower levels
spreading load again, but by pulling to the idlest it should converge
faster.
Picking a random cpu would also work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-04 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-01 18:14 [RFC][PATCH 0/5] various sched and numa bits Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched, fair: Let minimally loaded cpu balance the group Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-02 10:25 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-05-02 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-02 10:34 ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2012-05-04 0:05 ` Suresh Siddha
2012-05-04 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] sched, fair: Add some serialization to the sched_domain load-balance walk Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] x86: Allow specifying node_distance() for numa=fake Peter Zijlstra
2012-05-01 18:14 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] x86: Hard partition cpu topology masks on node boundaries Peter Zijlstra
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=1336147765.6509.41.camel@twins \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.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