public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de,
	pjt@google.com, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com,
	aswin@hp.com, scott.norton@hp.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 3/3] sched: Periodically decay max cost of idle balance
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 23:02:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1378274579.3004.9.camel@j-VirtualBox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130830102941.GF10002@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 12:29 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Decay the newidle max times here because this is a regular
> +		 * visit to all the domains. Decay ~0.5% per second.
> +		 */
> +		if (time_after(jiffies, sd->next_decay_max_lb_cost)) {
> +			sd->max_newidle_lb_cost =
> +				(sd->max_newidle_lb_cost * 254) / 256;

I initially picked 0.5%, but after trying it out, it appears to decay very
slowing when the max is at a high value. Should we increase the decay a
little bit more? Maybe something like:

sd->max_newidle_lb_cost = (sd->max_newidle_lb_cost * 63) / 64;

> +		/*
> +		 * Stop the load balance at this level. There is another
> +		 * CPU in our sched group which is doing load balancing more
> +		 * actively.
> +		 */
> +		if (!continue_balancing) {

Is "continue_balancing" named "balance" in older kernels?

Here are the AIM7 results with the other 2 patches + this patch with the
slightly higher decay value.

----------------------------------------------------------------
workload     | % improvement   | % improvement  | % improvement
             | with patch      | with patch     | with patch
             | 1100-2000 users | 200-1000 users | 10-100 users
----------------------------------------------------------------
alltests     |  +9.2%          |  +5.2%         |  +0.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------
compute      |  +0.0%          |  -0.9%         |  +0.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------
custom       | +18.6%          | +15.3%         |  +7.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------
disk         |  +4.0%          | +16.5%         |  +7.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------
fserver      | +64.8%          | +27.5%         |  -0.6%
----------------------------------------------------------------
high_systime | +15.1%          |  +7.9%         |  +0.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------
new_fserver  | +51.0%          | +20.1%         |  -1.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------
shared       |  +6.3%          |  +8.8%         |  +2.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------



  reply	other threads:[~2013-09-04  6:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-29 20:05 [PATCH v4 0/3] sched: Limiting idle balance Jason Low
2013-08-29 20:05 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] sched: Reduce overestimating rq->avg_idle Jason Low
2013-09-02  6:36   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-08-29 20:05 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] sched: Consider max cost of idle balance per sched domain Jason Low
2013-08-30  9:46   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-02  6:54   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2013-09-03 21:06     ` Jason Low
2013-08-29 20:05 ` [RFC][PATCH v4 3/3] sched: Periodically decay max cost of idle balance Jason Low
2013-08-30 10:18   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-08-30 10:29     ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-04  6:02       ` Jason Low [this message]
2013-09-09 11:44         ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-09 20:40           ` Jason Low
2013-09-04  7:10     ` Jason Low
2013-09-09 11:49       ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-09-09 21:07         ` Jason Low
2013-09-10  1:40           ` Mike Galbraith
2013-09-12 10:31 ` [PATCH v4 0/3] sched: Limiting " 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=1378274579.3004.9.camel@j-VirtualBox \
    --to=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aswin@hp.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=scott.norton@hp.com \
    --cc=srikar@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