public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com>,
	"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
	akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:05:06 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4025B572.9040904@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040208035721.GY19011@krispykreme>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 346 bytes --]



Anton Blanchard wrote:

> 
>Hi,
>
>  
>
>>Yeah its because you have a lot of cpus, so the average is still
>>small. You also need something like
>>
>>if (*imbalance == 0 && max_load - this_load > SCHED_LOAD_SCALE)
>>   *imbalance = 1;
>>    
>>
>
>OK I'll give that a try.
>  
>
>  
>

Can you try this patch instead pretty please ;)

Thanks



[-- Attachment #2: rollup.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2941 bytes --]

 linux-2.6-npiggin/kernel/sched.c |   52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff -puN kernel/sched.c~rollup kernel/sched.c
--- linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c~rollup	2004-02-08 15:03:53.000000000 +1100
+++ linux-2.6-npiggin/kernel/sched.c	2004-02-08 15:03:53.000000000 +1100
@@ -1405,16 +1405,28 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *
 
 		total_load += avg_load;
 		total_nr_cpus += nr_cpus;
-		avg_load /= nr_cpus;
+
+		/*
+		 * Load is cumulative over SD_FLAG_IDLE domains, but
+		 * spread over !SD_FLAG_IDLE domains. For example, 2
+		 * processes running on an SMT CPU puts a load of 2 on
+		 * that CPU, however 2 processes running on 2 CPUs puts
+		 * a load of 1 on that domain.
+		 *
+		 * This should be configurable so as SMT siblings become
+		 * more powerful, they can "spread" more load - for example,
+		 * the above case might only count as a load of 1.7.
+		 */
+		if (!(domain->flags & SD_FLAG_IDLE))
+			avg_load /= nr_cpus;
+
+		if (avg_load > max_load)
+			max_load = avg_load;
 
 		if (local_group) {
 			this_load = avg_load;
-			goto nextgroup;
-		}
-
-		if (avg_load >= max_load) {
+		} else if (avg_load >= max_load) {
 			busiest = group;
-			max_load = avg_load;
 			busiest_nr_cpus = nr_cpus;
 		}
 nextgroup:
@@ -1424,8 +1436,10 @@ nextgroup:
 	if (!busiest)
 		goto out_balanced;
 
-	avg_load = total_load / total_nr_cpus;
-	if (idle == NOT_IDLE && this_load >= avg_load)
+	if (!(domain->flags & SD_FLAG_IDLE))
+		avg_load = total_load / total_nr_cpus;
+
+	if (this_load >= avg_load)
 		goto out_balanced;
 
 	if (idle == NOT_IDLE && 100*max_load <= domain->imbalance_pct*this_load)
@@ -1437,20 +1451,18 @@ nextgroup:
 	 * reduce the max loaded cpu below the average load, as either of these
 	 * actions would just result in more rebalancing later, and ping-pong
 	 * tasks around. Thus we look for the minimum possible imbalance.
+	 * Negative imbalances (*we* are more loaded than anyone else) will
+	 * be counted as no imbalance for these purposes -- we can't fix that
+	 * by pulling tasks to us.  Be careful of negative numbers as they'll
+	 * appear as very large values with unsigned longs.
 	 */
-	*imbalance = min(max_load - avg_load, avg_load - this_load);
-
-	/* Get rid of the scaling factor now, rounding *up* as we divide */
-	*imbalance = (*imbalance + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE - 1) >> SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT;
-
-	if (*imbalance == 0) {
-		if (package_idle != NOT_IDLE && domain->flags & SD_FLAG_IDLE
-			&& max_load * busiest_nr_cpus > (3*SCHED_LOAD_SCALE/2))
-			*imbalance = 1;
-		else
-			busiest = NULL;
-	}
+	*imbalance = min(max_load - avg_load, avg_load - this_load) / 2;
+	/* Get rid of the scaling factor, rounding *up* as we divide */
+	*imbalance = (*imbalance + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE-1)
+					>> SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT;
 
+	if (*imbalance == 0 && (max_load - this_load) > SCHED_LOAD_SCALE)
+		*imbalance = 1;
 	return busiest;
 
 out_balanced:

_

  reply	other threads:[~2004-02-08  4:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-02-06  9:24 [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1 Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06  9:38 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 18:13   ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 21:57     ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:30       ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 22:40         ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:49           ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 23:08             ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 10:30 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-06 18:15   ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 18:39     ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 22:02       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:34         ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 22:48           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:42         ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 22:53           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:11           ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 23:20             ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:33               ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 23:41                 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:47                   ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-07  0:11                     ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-07  0:25                       ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-07  0:31                         ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-07  9:50                           ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08  0:40                             ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-08  1:12                               ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08  1:21                                 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08  1:41                                   ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08  3:20                                     ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08  3:57                                       ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08  4:05                                         ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-02-08 12:14                                           ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08  1:22                                 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-09 16:37                       ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-09 16:43                         ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 18:33   ` Martin J. Bligh

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=4025B572.9040904@cyberone.com.au \
    --to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    --cc=ricklind@us.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