From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, steven.sistare@oracle.com,
dhaval.giani@oracle.com, rohit.k.jain@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched: limit cpu search and rotate search window for scalability
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 14:53:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180424125349.GU4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180424004116.28151-4-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:41:16PM -0700, subhra mazumdar wrote:
> Lower the lower limit of idle cpu search in select_idle_cpu() and also put
> an upper limit. This helps in scalability of the search by restricting the
> search window.
> @@ -6297,15 +6297,24 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>
> if (sched_feat(SIS_PROP)) {
> u64 span_avg = sd->span_weight * avg_idle;
> - if (span_avg > 4*avg_cost)
> + if (span_avg > 2*avg_cost) {
> nr = div_u64(span_avg, avg_cost);
> - else
> - nr = 4;
> + if (nr > 4)
> + nr = 4;
> + } else {
> + nr = 2;
> + }
> }
Why do you need to put a max on? Why isn't the proportional thing
working as is? (is the average no good because of big variance or what)
Again, why do you need to lower the min; what's wrong with 4?
The reason I picked 4 is that many laptops have 4 CPUs and desktops
really want to avoid queueing if at all possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-24 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-24 0:41 [RFC/RFT PATCH 0/3] Improve scheduler scalability for fast path subhra mazumdar
2018-04-24 0:41 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched: remove select_idle_core() for scalability subhra mazumdar
2018-04-24 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-24 21:45 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-04-25 17:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-30 23:38 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-05-01 18:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-02 21:58 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-05-04 18:51 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-05-29 21:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-05-30 22:08 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-05-31 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-24 0:41 ` [PATCH 2/3] sched: introduce per-cpu var next_cpu to track search limit subhra mazumdar
2018-04-24 12:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-24 22:39 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-04-24 0:41 ` [PATCH 3/3] sched: limit cpu search and rotate search window for scalability subhra mazumdar
2018-04-24 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-24 22:43 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-04-24 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-24 22:48 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-04-24 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-04-25 0:10 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2018-04-25 15:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-25 18:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20180424125349.GU4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rohit.k.jain@oracle.com \
--cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.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