From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin.vincent@axis.com>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH?] Livelock in pick_next_task_fair() / idle_balance()
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 06:31:44 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150705223144.GG5197@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150703163831.GQ3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I'm not against having a policy that sits somewhere in between, we just
> > have to agree it is the right policy and clean up the load-balance code
> > such that the implemented policy is clear.
>
> Right, for balancing its a tricky question, but mixing them without
> intent is, as you say, a bit of a mess.
>
> So clearly blocked load doesn't make sense for (new)idle balancing. OTOH
> it does make some sense for the regular periodic balancing, because
> there we really do care mostly about the averages, esp. so when we're
> overloaded -- but there are issues there too.
>
> Now we can't track them both (or rather we could, but overhead).
>
> I like Yuyang's load tracking rewrite, but it changes exactly this part,
> and I'm not sure I understand the full ramifications of that yet.
Thanks. It would be a pure average policy, which is non-perfect like now,
and certainly needs a mixing like now, but it is worth a starter, because
it is simple and reasaonble, and based on it, the other parts can be simple
and reasonable.
> One way out would be to split the load balancer into 3 distinct regions;
>
> 1) get a task on every CPU, screw everything else.
> 2) get each CPU fully utilized, still ignoring 'load'
> 3) when everybody is fully utilized, consider load.
>
> If we make find_busiest_foo() select one of these 3, and make
> calculate_imbalance() invariant to the metric passed in, and have things
> like cpu_load() and task_load() return different, but coherent, numbers
> depending on which region we're in, this almost sounds 'simple'.
>
> The devil is in the details, and the balancer is a hairy nest of details
> which will make the above non-trivial.
>
> But for 1) we could simply 'balance' on nr_running, for 2) we can
> 'balance' on runnable_avg and for 3) we'll 'balance' on load_avg (which
> will then include blocked load).
>
> Let me go play outside for a bit so that it can sink in what kind of
> nonsense my heat addled brain has just sprouted :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-06 6:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-30 14:30 [PATCH?] Livelock in pick_next_task_fair() / idle_balance() Rabin Vincent
2015-07-01 5:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-01 14:55 ` Rabin Vincent
2015-07-01 15:47 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-01 20:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-01 23:25 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-02 8:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-02 1:05 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-02 10:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-02 11:40 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-07-02 19:37 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-03 9:34 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-07-03 16:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-05 22:31 ` Yuyang Du [this message]
2015-07-09 14:32 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-07-09 23:24 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-05 20:12 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-06 17:36 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2015-07-07 11:17 ` Rabin Vincent
2015-07-13 17:43 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2015-07-09 13:53 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-07-09 22:34 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-02 10:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-02 11:44 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-07-02 18:42 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-03 4:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-03 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-05 22:11 ` Yuyang Du
2015-07-09 6:15 ` Stefan Ekenberg
2015-07-26 18:57 ` Yuyang Du
2015-08-03 17:05 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Avoid pulling all tasks in idle balancing tip-bot for Yuyang Du
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=20150705223144.GG5197@intel.com \
--to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=rabin.vincent@axis.com \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.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