From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752694AbbC0FBf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:01:35 -0400
Received: from g4t3426.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.54]:53492 "EHLO
	g4t3426.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750931AbbC0FBe (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:01:34 -0400
Message-ID: <1427432472.2788.4.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of
 idle CPUs
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>, peterz@infradead.org,
        mingo@kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pjt@google.com,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, efault@gmx.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        jason.low2@hp.com
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:01:12 -0700
In-Reply-To: <5514DD91.8090505@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20150326130014.21532.17158.stgit@preeti.in.ibm.com>
	 <20150327021201.GA4491@kernel> <5514DD91.8090505@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 10:03 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Wanpeng
> 
> On 03/27/2015 07:42 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > Hi Preeti,
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:32:44PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. An ILB CPU was chosen from the first numa domain to trigger nohz idle
> >> load balancing [Given the experiment, upto 6 CPUs per core could be
> >> potentially idle in this domain.]
> >>
> >> 2. However the ILB CPU would call load_balance() on itself before
> >> initiating nohz idle load balancing.
> >>
> >> 3. Given cores are SMT8, the ILB CPU had enough opportunities to pull
> >> tasks from its sibling cores to even out load.
> >>
> >> 4. Now that the ILB CPU was no longer idle, it would abort nohz idle
> >> load balancing
> > 
> > I don't see abort nohz idle load balancing when ILB CPU was no longer idle 
> > in nohz_idle_balance(), could you explain more in details?
> 
> When the ILB CPU pulls load in rebalance_domains(), its idle state
> is set to CPU_NOT_IDLE.
> 
> ""
> idle = idle_cpu(cpu) ? CPU_IDLE : CPU_NOT_IDLE;

Hi Preeti,

The "idle" variable is a local variable to the rebalance_domains()
function. In that case, that shouldn't have an affect on the idle value
that gets passed to nohz_idle_balance().