From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751293Ab2LUFrW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:47:22 -0500
Received: from LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com ([156.147.1.111]:47913 "EHLO
	LGEMRELSE1Q.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750908Ab2LUFrP (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:47:15 -0500
X-AuditID: 9c93016f-b7b54ae000000e9e-28-50d3f7e02d96
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:47:12 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>, len.brown@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
        linux@arm.linux.org.uk, peterz@infradead.org, arjan@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        chander.kashyap@linaro.org, pjt@google.com, mingo@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/6] sched: pack small tasks
Message-ID: <20121221054712.GA2933@danjae>
References: <1355319092-30980-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1355319092-30980-4-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <50C93AC1.1060202@intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtB9iz1ePsS+juQVRhuWREYB1duGWRJT7ya8XBXPhC-mkw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB9iz1ePsS+juQVRhuWREYB1duGWRJT7ya8XBXPhC-mkw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Vincent,

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:11:11AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote:
> > On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> +static bool is_buddy_busy(int cpu)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> >> +
> >> +     /*
> >> +      * A busy buddy is a CPU with a high load or a small load with a lot of
> >> +      * running tasks.
> >> +      */
> >> +     return ((rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum << rq->nr_running) >
> >
> > If nr_running a bit big, rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum << rq->nr_running is
> > zero. you will get the wrong decision.
> 
> yes, I'm going to do that like below instead:
> return (rq->avg.runnable_avg_sum > (rq->avg.runnable_avg_period >>
> rq->nr_running));

Doesn't it consider nr_running too much?  It seems current is_buddy_busy
returns false on a cpu that has 1 task runs 40% cputime, but returns true
on a cpu that has 3 tasks runs 10% cputime each or for 2 tasks of 15%
cputime each, right?

I don't know what is correct, but just guessing that in a cpu's point
of view it'd be busier if it has a higher runnable_avg_sum than a
higher nr_running IMHO.


> 
> >
> >> +                     rq->avg.runnable_avg_period);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static bool is_light_task(struct task_struct *p)
> >> +{
> >> +     /* A light task runs less than 25% in average */
> >> +     return ((p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum << 1) <
> >> +                     p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period);
> >
> > 25% may not suitable for big machine.
> 
> Threshold is always an issue, which threshold should be suitable for
> big machine ?
> 
> I'm wondering if i should use the imbalance_pct value for computing
> the threshold

Anyway, I wonder how 'sum << 1' computes 25%.  Shouldn't it be << 2 ?

Thanks,
Namhyung