Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1

Nick Piggin
2004-02-06T23:23:43Z

Rick Lindsley wrote:

> OK, but do you agree that the rate we rebalance things like 2 vs 1 should
> be slower than the rate we rebalance 3 vs 1 ? Fairness is only relevant
> over a long term imbalance anyway, so there should be a big damper on
> "fairness only" rebalances.
>
>I think, given the precision we're granted via SCHED_LOAD_SCALE, in
>combination with the new "load average" (cpu_load) code, that we can
>achieve what we want.
>
>If cpu0 has 2 runnable tasks and cpu1 has 1 runnable task, won't we see
>the "load average" of cpu0 slowly approach 2, but not jump there?
>
>

Yep

>Right now, we round up on all fractions and Martin has proposed a patch
>which takes it the other way and rounds down. What if in marginal
>cases like this where this is a small but persistent difference, we
>could bump the task to another cpu when it reaches (say) 1.8 or 1.9?
>That would keep it there longer for shorter-lived tasks, but for those
>long-runners, they'd eventually spread the pain around a little.
>
>And yes, a cpu_load of even 1.0 should *never* get migrated to a cpu
>with a load 0.0. Instead of
>

This isn't the load though, but imbalance. It has already passed
through our imbalance_pct filter (or we are idle), so we can pretty
safely assume that we want to try to move at least one task.

>
> *imbalance = (*imbalance + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE - 1) >> SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT;
>
>how about, for instance,
>
> if (max_load <= SCHED_LOAD_SCALE)
> *imbalance = 0;
> else
> *imbalance = (*imbalance + (SCHED_LOAD_SCALE / 6) - 1)
> >> SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT;
>
>The intent is to never move anything if max_load is 1 or less (what
>advantage is there?) and to create a slight tendency to round up at
>loads greater than that, which would still tend to leave things where
>they were until they'd been there a while. In fact the "bonus"
>(SCHED_LOAD_SCALE / 6 - 1) could be another configurable in the scheduling
>domain so that at some level you're not interested in fairness and
>they just don't bounce at all.
>
>

Hopefully just tending to round down more would damp it better.
*imbalance = (*imbalance + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE/2) >> SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT;
Or even remove the addition all together.