From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: akpm@osdl.org
Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/7] sched_domain balancing via tasklet V2
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:41:12 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061028024112.10809.15841.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
This patchset moves potentially expensive load balancing out of the scheduler
tick (where we run with interrupts disabled) into a tasklet that is triggered
if necessary from scheduler_tick(). Load balancing will then run with interrupts
enabled. This eliminates interrupt holdoff times and avoids potential machine
livelock if f.e. load balancing is performed over a large number of processors
and many of the nodes experience heavy load which may lead to delays in
fetching cachelines. We have currently up to 1024 processors and may go up
to 4096 soon. Similar issues were seen on a Fujitsu system in the past.
However, this issue also highlights the general problem of interrupt
holdoff during scheduler load balancing.
The moving of the load balancing into a tasklet also allows some
cleanup in scheduler_tick(). It gets easier to read and the determination
of the state for load balancing can be moved out of scheduler_tick().
Further optimization of scheduler_tick() processing occurs because we
no longer check all the sched domains on each tick.
We determine the time of the next load balancing on every load balancing
and check against this single value in scheduler_tick().
Another optimization is that we perform the staggering of the individual
load balance operations not during load balancing but shift that
to the setup of the sched domains.
For the earlier discussion see:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=116119187800002&r=1&w=2
V1: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116171494001548&w=2
V1-V2:
- Keep last_balance and calculate the next balancing from that start
point.
- Move more code into time_slice calculation and rename time_slice()
to task_running_tick().
- Separate out the wake_priority_sleeper optimization as a first patch.
next reply other threads:[~2006-10-28 2:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-28 2:41 Christoph Lameter [this message]
2006-10-28 2:41 ` [PATCH 1/7] Avoid taking rq lock in wake_priority_sleeper Christoph Lameter
2006-10-28 2:41 ` [PATCH 2/7] Disable interrupts for locking in load_balance() Christoph Lameter
2006-10-28 2:41 ` [PATCH 3/7] Extract load calculation from rebalance_tick Christoph Lameter
2006-10-28 2:41 ` [PATCH 4/7] Stagger load balancing in build_sched_domains Christoph Lameter
2006-10-28 2:41 ` [PATCH 5/7] Move idle stat calculation into rebalance_tick() Christoph Lameter
2006-10-28 17:57 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2006-10-29 1:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-10-28 2:41 ` [PATCH 6/7] Use tasklet to call balancing Christoph Lameter
2006-10-28 2:41 ` [PATCH 7/7] Call tasklet less frequently Christoph Lameter
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=20061028024112.10809.15841.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com \
--to=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.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