From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
James Hartsock <hartsjc@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: unused cpu in affine workload
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:38:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160404093844.GA16017@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160404091951.GA10360@gmail.com>
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> So my thinking here is: if the NUMA balancing code (which is node granular at
> the moment and uses node masks, etc.) is extended to be CPU granular (which is a
> big task in itself), then the two problems can be 'unified':
>
> - the NUMA balancing code inputs arbitrarly CPU (node) affinity masks from the
> MM code into the scheduler.
>
> - the scheduler syscall ABI (and other configuration sources) inputs arbitrary
> CPU affinity masks into the scheduler.
>
> it's a similar problem, with two (minor looking) complication:
btw., this highlights how hard the optimization problem is: the NUMA balancing
code is (at least ...) O(nr_nodes^2) complex - but we had O(nr_nodes^3) passes too
in some of the NUMA balancing submissions...
We'd upgrade that to O(nr_cpus^2), which is totally unrealistic with 16,000 CPUs
even in a slowpath - but it would probably cause problems even with 120 CPUs. It
will get quadratically worse as the number of CPUs in a system increases on its
current exponential trajectory ...
So the safest bet would be to restrict any 'perfect' balancing attempts to node
boundaries. Which won't solve the problem you outlined to begin with.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-04 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-04 8:23 [RFC] sched: unused cpu in affine workload Jiri Olsa
2016-04-04 8:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-04 8:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-04 9:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-04 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2016-04-04 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-04 19:45 ` Rik van Riel
2016-04-04 21:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 8:56 ` Jiri Olsa
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=20160404093844.GA16017@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=hartsjc@redhat.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=ktkhai@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).