From: pjt@google.com
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Pierre Bourdon <pbourdon@excellency.fr>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 00/12] [RFC tg_shares_up - v1 00/12] Reducing cost of tg->shares distribution
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:43:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101016044349.830426011@google.com> (raw)
Hi all,
Peter previously posted a patchset that attempted to improve the problem of
task_group share distribution. This is something that has been a long-time
pain point for group scheduling. The existing algorithm considers
distributions on a per-cpu-per-domain basis and carries a fairly high update
overhead, especially on larger machines.
I was previously looking at improving this using Fenwick trees to allow a
single sum without the exorbitant cost but then Peter's idea above was better :).
The kernel is that by monitoring the average contribution to load on a
per-cpu-per-taskgroup basis we can distribute the weight for which we are
expected to consume.
This set extends the original posting with a focus on increased fairness and
reduced convergence (to true average) time. In particular the case of large
over-commit in the case of a distributed wake-up is a concern which is now
fairly well addressed.
Obviously everything's experimental but it should be stable/fair.
Some motivation:
24 thread intel box, 150 active cgroups, multiple threads/group, load at ~90% (10 second sample):
tip:
2.64% [k] tg_shares_up <!>
0.15% [k] __set_se_shares
patched:
0.02% [k] update_cfs_load
0.01% [k] update_cpu_load
0.00% [k] update_cfs_shares
Some fairness coverage for the above at: http://rs5.risingnet.net/~pjt/patches/shares_data_v1.txt
Note: The last patch is fairly obviously a temporary debug patch, I only
include it as it interfaces with some analysis scripts I'm simultaneously
trying to publish for the purposes of validating this series. Since this
approach estimates the share distribution, the spread between issued shares
and target is an important factor until people are happy with the patchset
Paul
TODO:
- Validate any RT interaction
- Continue collecting/analyzing performance and fairness data
- Should the shares period just be the sched_latency?
next reply other threads:[~2010-10-16 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-16 4:43 pjt [this message]
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 01/12] sched: rewrite tg_shares_up pjt
2010-10-21 6:04 ` Bharata B Rao
2010-10-21 6:28 ` Paul Turner
2010-10-21 8:08 ` Bharata B Rao
2010-10-21 8:38 ` Paul Turner
2010-10-21 9:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <AANLkTi=zYAfb_izD15ROxH=C6+zPzX+XEGw7r5UUoAar@mail.gmail.com>
2010-11-04 21:00 ` Paul Turner
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 02/12] sched: on-demand (active) cfs_rq list pjt
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 03/12] sched: make tg_shares_up() walk on-demand pjt
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 04/12] sched: fix load corruption from update_cfs_shares pjt
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 05/12] sched: fix update_cfs_load synchronization pjt
2010-10-21 9:52 ` Bharata B Rao
2010-10-21 18:25 ` Paul Turner
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 06/12] sched: hierarchal order on shares update list pjt
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 07/12] sched: add sysctl_sched_shares_window pjt
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 08/12] sched: update shares on idle_balance pjt
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 09/12] sched: demand based update_cfs_load() pjt
2010-10-16 4:43 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 10/12] sched: allow update_cfs_load to update global load pjt
2010-10-16 4:44 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 11/12] sched: update tg->shares after cpu.shares write pjt
2010-10-16 4:44 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 12/12] debug: export effective shares for analysis versus specified pjt
2010-10-16 19:46 ` [RFC tg_shares_up improvements - v1 00/12] [RFC tg_shares_up - v1 00/12] Reducing cost of tg->shares distribution Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-21 6:36 ` Paul Turner
2010-10-22 0:14 ` Paul Turner
2010-10-17 5:24 ` Balbir Singh
2010-10-17 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-10-17 12:09 ` Balbir Singh
2010-11-03 18:27 ` Karl Rister
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=20101016044349.830426011@google.com \
--to=pjt@google.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pbourdon@excellency.fr \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=vatsa@in.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