From: Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Michael Hohnbaum <hohnbaum@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] kernel/sched.c oddness?
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 14:15:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D9CB35D.90503@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Pine.LNX.4.44.0210030840110.4477-100000@localhost.localdomain
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> this was done intentionally, and this scenario (1+2 tasks) is the very
> worst scenario. The problem is that by trying to balance all 3 tasks we
> now have 3 tasks that trash their cache going from one CPU to another.
> (this is what happens with your patch - even with another approach we'd
> have to trash at least one task)
>
> By keeping 2 tasks on one CPU and 1 task on the other CPU we avoid
> cross-CPU migration of threads. Think about the 2+3 or 4+5 tasks case
> rather, do we want absolutely perfect balancing, or good SMP affinity and
> good combined performance?
OK... But what about the (imbalance / 2) part? Either the comment
needs to change, or the code. Attatched is a slightly revised patch for
the code. The comment patch would be even easier:
-
/* It needs an at least ~25% imbalance to trigger balancing. */
+
/* It needs an at least ~50% imbalance to trigger balancing. */
Either way works for me. I'd like to see something done, as the
comments don't match the code right now...
Cheers!
-Matt
[-- Attachment #2: sched_cleanup-2.5.40.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]
diff -Nur --exclude-from=/usr/src/.dontdiff linux-2.5.40-vanilla/kernel/sched.c linux-2.5.40-sched_cleanup/kernel/sched.c
--- linux-2.5.40-vanilla/kernel/sched.c Tue Oct 1 00:07:35 2002
+++ linux-2.5.40-sched_cleanup/kernel/sched.c Thu Oct 3 14:09:31 2002
@@ -689,10 +689,10 @@
if (likely(!busiest))
goto out;
- *imbalance = (max_load - nr_running) / 2;
+ *imbalance = max_load - nr_running;
/* It needs an at least ~25% imbalance to trigger balancing. */
- if (!idle && (*imbalance < (max_load + 3)/4)) {
+ if (!idle && (*imbalance <= (max_load + 3)/4)) {
busiest = NULL;
goto out;
}
@@ -746,6 +746,11 @@
task_t *tmp;
busiest = find_busiest_queue(this_rq, this_cpu, idle, &imbalance);
+ /*
+ * We only want to steal a number of tasks equal to 1/2 the imbalance,
+ * otherwise, we'll just shift the imbalance to the new queue.
+ */
+ imbalance /= 2;
if (!busiest)
goto out;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-03 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-02 18:41 [rfc][patch] kernel/sched.c oddness? Matthew Dobson
2002-10-03 0:06 ` Nick Piggin
2002-10-03 0:30 ` Matthew Dobson
2002-10-03 6:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-10-03 8:32 ` Nick Piggin
2002-10-03 21:15 ` Matthew Dobson [this message]
2002-10-04 7:46 ` Ingo Molnar
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=3D9CB35D.90503@us.ibm.com \
--to=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=hohnbaum@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
/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