From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Cc: "'Anders Boström'" <anders@netinsight.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"'Lesław Kopeć'" <leslaw.kopec@nasza-klasa.pl>,
"'Aman Gupta'" <aman@tmm1.net>,
"'Peter Zijlstra'" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"'Thomas Gleixner'" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Charles Wang" <muming.wq@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [3.2.16 -> 3.2.17 regression] High reported CPU load when idle
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:49:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120610174939.GA456@burratino> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000c01cd3e70$b651dd10$22f59730$@net>
Hi Doug et al,
Doug Smythies wrote:
> "does 556061b00c9f ("sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load[] calculations",
> 2012-05-11) change anything?"
>
> I back edited those changes into my test environment yesterday. It
> made no difference with respect to this issue. (minimally tested.)
[...]
> By the way, I found and tested 5aaa0b7a2ed5b12692c9ffb5222182bd558d3146
> It is similar (minimally tested).
>
> I am certainly not an expert, and I find the load average area of the
> code extremely difficult to follow and understand. That being said, I
> think the root issue here is the 10 tick grace period. I think that
> cpu idle enter exit transitions can not be ignored during this period,
> and somehow needs to be accumulated towards the next sample time. So far,
> I have been unsuccessful trying to help with a suggested solution. I will
> continue to try.
Another load average related patch is being discussed (not meant
particularly to address the too-low load case, just mentioning it
FYI):
sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate
After patch 453494c3d4 (sched: Fix nohz load accounting -- again!), we can fold
the idle into calc_load_tasks_idle between the last cpu load calculating and
calc_global_load calling. However problem still exits between the first cpu
load calculating and the last cpu load calculating. Every time when we do load
calculating, calc_load_tasks_idle will be added into calc_load_tasks, even if
the idle load is caused by calculated cpus. This problem is also described in
the following link:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/24/419
This bug can be found in our work load. The average running processes number
is about 15, but the load only shows about 4.
>From [*].
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
[*] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1310462
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-10 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20120523.144057.899060240318474097.anders@netinsight.net>
2012-05-23 21:53 ` [3.2.16 -> 3.2.17 regression] High reported CPU load when idle Jonathan Nieder
2012-05-24 21:45 ` Jonathan Nieder
2012-05-30 14:30 ` Doug Smythies
2012-05-30 14:54 ` Anders Boström
2012-06-05 15:35 ` Lesław Kopeć
2012-06-08 17:01 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-10 17:49 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2012-06-12 6:12 ` Doug Smythies
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=20120610174939.GA456@burratino \
--to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aman@tmm1.net \
--cc=anders@netinsight.net \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=leslaw.kopec@nasza-klasa.pl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=muming.wq@gmail.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