From: venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Subject: [patch 0/2] RFC sched: Change nohz ilb logic from poll to push model
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:26:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090617182649.604970000@intel.com> (raw)
Existing nohz idle load balance (ilb) logic uses the pull model, with one
idle load balancer CPU nominated on any partially idle system and that
balancer CPU not going into nohz mode. With the periodic tick, the
balancer does the idle balancing on behalf of all the CPUs in nohz mode.
This is not very optimal and has few issues:
* the balancer will continue to have periodic ticks and wakeup
frequently (HZ rate), even though it may not have any rebalancing to do on
behalf of any of the idle CPUs.
* On x86 and CPUs that have APIC timer stoppage on idle CPUs, this periodic
wakeup can result in an additional interrupt on a CPU doing the timer
broadcast.
* The balancer may end up spending a lot of time doing the balancing on
behalf of nohz CPUs, especially with increasing number of sockets and
cores in the platform.
The alternative is to have a push model, where all idle CPUs can enter nohz
mode and busy CPU kicks one of the idle CPUs to take care of idle balancing
on behalf of a group of idle CPUs.
Following patches tries that approach. There are still some rough edges
in the patches related to use of #defines around the code. But, wanted
to get opinion on this approach as an RFC (not for inclusion into the
tree yet).
Thanks,
Venki
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
--
--
next reply other threads:[~2009-06-17 18:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-17 18:26 venkatesh.pallipadi [this message]
2009-06-17 18:26 ` [patch 1/2] RFC sched: Change the nohz ilb logic from pull to push model venkatesh.pallipadi
2009-06-17 18:26 ` [patch 2/2] RFC sched: Scale the nohz_tracker logic by making it per NUMA node venkatesh.pallipadi
2009-06-17 19:21 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-06-17 19:16 ` [patch 0/2] RFC sched: Change nohz ilb logic from poll to push model Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-06-18 23:41 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
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=20090617182649.604970000@intel.com \
--to=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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