public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 :-)

  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