From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [BUG] idle_balance() does not call load_balance_newidle()
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:52:11 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081209082211.GA29340@dirshya.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081209063448.GA17706@elte.hu>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> [2008-12-09 07:34:48]:
>
> * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> [2008-12-08 16:49:39]:
> >
> > >
> > > * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > load_balance_newidle() does not get called if SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is
> > > > set at higher level domain (3-CPU) and not in low level domain (2-MC).
> > > >
> > > > pulled_task is initialised to -1 and checked for non-zero which is
> > > > always true if the lowest level sched_domain does not have
> > > > SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE flag set.
> > > >
> > > > Trivial fix to initialise pulled_task to zero.
> > > > Patch against 2.6.28-rc7
> > >
> > > applied to tip/sched/core, thanks! (Not for v2.6.28 because this could
> > > affect performance.)
> >
> > Thanks Ingo. This patch does not change any functionality in v2.6.28
> > and hence will not affect performance. The SD flags are not touched. I
> > found this bug while setting different SD flags at MC level and CPU
> > level in my power saving balance patches.
>
> if it does not change any functionality then we would not be doing the
> change, right?
:)
> It does change functionality, because:
>
> > > > load_balance_newidle() does not get called if SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is
> > > > set at higher level domain (3-CPU) and not in low level domain
> > > > (2-MC).
>
> even though it's a bug fix, it affects how the SD flags are interpreted
> and acted upon by the load balancer - i.e. the change can impact
> performance.
Agreed. In my test setup with two levels of sched_domains,
SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE has not been set in both CPU level and MC level
starting from 2.6.28-rc4. In a setup with more levels of
sched_domains and if the higher levels have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set,
then we will have a functional impact.
You are right in queueing it for 2.6.29.
Thanks for the clarification.
--Vaidy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-09 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-08 15:22 [BUG] idle_balance() does not call load_balance_newidle() Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-08 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-12-08 15:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-09 4:07 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2008-12-09 6:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-12-09 8:22 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan [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=20081209082211.GA29340@dirshya.in.ibm.com \
--to=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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