From: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, raz@scalemp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, efault@gmx.de,
cpw@sgi.com, travis@sgi.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] soft lockup while booting machine with more than 700 cores
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:12:23 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110210211223.GB10757@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110210.130325.112603217.davem@davemloft.net>
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 01:03:25PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 14:56:48 -0600
>
> > We also noticed that the rebalance_domains() code references many per-cpu
> > run queue structures. All of the structures have identical offsets relative
> > to the size of a cache leaf. The result is that all index into the same lines in the
> > L3 caches. That causes many evictions. We tried an experimental to
> > stride the run queues at 128 byte offsets. That helped in some cases but the
> > results were mixed. We are still experimenting with the patch.
>
> I think chasing after cache alignment issues misses the point entirely.
>
> The core issue is that rebalance_domains() is insanely expensive, by
> design. It's complexity is N factorial for the idle non-HZ cpu that is
> selected to balance every single domain.
>
> A statistic datastructure that is approximately 128 bytes in size is
> repopulated N! times each time this global rebalance thing runs.
>
> I've been seeing rebalance_domains() in my perf top output on 128 cpu
> machines for several years now. Even on an otherwise idle machine,
> the system churns in thus code path endlessly.
Completely agree! Idle rebalancing is also a big problem. We've seen
significant improvements on large systems in network thruput by
disabling IDLE load balancing for the higher (2 & 3) scheduling domains.
This is not a real fix but points to a problem.
--- jack
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-10 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-09 7:27 [BUG] soft lockup while booting machine with more than 700 cores raz ben yehuda
2011-02-10 4:47 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-02-10 12:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-02-10 6:09 ` raz ben yehuda
2011-02-10 20:56 ` Jack Steiner
2011-02-10 21:03 ` David Miller
2011-02-10 21:12 ` Jack Steiner [this message]
2011-02-16 15:04 ` Dimitri Sivanich
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=20110210211223.GB10757@sgi.com \
--to=steiner@sgi.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=cpw@sgi.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=raz@scalemp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=travis@sgi.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