From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
"fweisbec@gmail.com" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"fenghua.yu@intel.com" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"arjan@linux.intel.com" <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
"pjt@google.com" <pjt@google.com>,
"fengguang.wu@intel.com" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
"james.hogan@imgtec.com" <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
"jason.low2@hp.com" <jason.low2@hp.com>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"hanjun.guo@linaro.org" <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: bias to target cpu load to reduce task moving
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 15:16:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140107151632.GF2936@e103034-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140107131523.GX3694@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:15:23PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:59:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:55:18PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > My understanding is that should_we_balance() decides which cpu is
> > > eligible for doing the load balancing for a given domain (and the
> > > domains above). That is, only one cpu in a group is allowed to load
> > > balance between the local group and other groups. That cpu would
> > > therefore be reponsible for pulling enough load that the groups are
> > > balanced even if it means temporarily overloading itself. The other cpus
> > > in the group will take care of load balancing the extra load within the
> > > local group later.
> >
> > Correct.
>
> On that; one of the things I wanted to (and previously did attempt but
> failed) is trying to rotate this cpu. Currently its always the first cpu
> (of the group) and that gives a noticeable bias.
>
> If we could slowly rotate the cpu that does this that would alleviate
> both the load and cost bias.
>From a load perspective wouldn't it be better to pick the least loaded
cpu in the group? It is not cheap to implement, but in theory it should
give less balancing within the group later an less unfairness until it
happens.
Rotating the cpu is probably good enough for most cases and certainly
easier to implement.
>
> One thing I was thinking of is keeping a global counter maybe:
> 'x := jiffies >> n'
> might be good enough and using the 'x % nr_cpus_in_group'-th cpu
> instead.
>
> Then again, these are micro issue and not a lot of people complain
> about this.
The bias continues after they first round of load balance by the other
cpus?
Pulling everything to one cpu is not ideal from a performance point of
view. You loose some available cpu cycles until the balance settles.
However, it is not easy to do better and maintain scalability at the
same time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-07 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-03 9:05 [PATCH 0/4] sched: remove cpu_load decay Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched: shortcut to remove load_idx Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched: remove rq->cpu_load[load_idx] array Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched: clean up cpu_load update Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched: bias to target cpu load to reduce task moving Alex Shi
2013-12-04 9:06 ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-12-04 11:25 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-17 14:10 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-17 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-19 13:34 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-20 11:19 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-20 14:45 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-25 14:58 ` Alex Shi
2014-01-02 16:04 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-01-06 13:35 ` Alex Shi
2014-01-07 12:55 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-01-07 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-07 13:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-07 13:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-07 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-07 15:16 ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2014-01-07 20:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-08 14:15 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-03 10:26 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched: remove cpu_load decay Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-10 1:04 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-10 1:06 ` Paul Turner
2013-12-13 19:50 ` bsegall
2013-12-14 12:53 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-13 20:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-14 13:27 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-17 14:04 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-17 15:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-17 18:12 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-20 14:43 ` Alex Shi
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=20140107151632.GF2936@e103034-lin \
--to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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