From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@google.com>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Subject: Re: -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:48:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43C9477B.8060709@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43C75178.80809@bigpond.net.au>
>
> Attached is a new patch to fix the excessive idle problem. This patch
> takes a new approach to the problem as it was becoming obvious that
> trying to alter the load balancing code to cope with biased load was
> harder than it seemed.
>
> This approach reverts to the old load values but weights them
> according to tasks' bias_prio values. This means that any assumptions
> by the load balancing code that the load generated by a single task is
> SCHED_LOAD_SCALE will still hold. Then, in find_busiest_group(), the
> imbalance is scaled back up to bias_prio scale so that move_tasks()
> can move biased load rather than tasks.
>
OK, this one seems to fix the issue that I had, AFAICS. Congrats, and
thanks,
M.
> One advantage of this is that when there are no non zero niced tasks
> the processing will be mathematically the same as the original code.
> Kernbench results from a 2 CPU Celeron 550Mhz system are:
>
> Average Optimal -j 8 Load Run:
> Elapsed Time 1056.16 (0.831102)
> User Time 1906.54 (1.38447)
> System Time 182.086 (0.973386)
> Percent CPU 197 (0)
> Context Switches 48727.2 (249.351)
> Sleeps 27623.4 (413.913)
>
> This indicates that, on average, 98.9% of the total available CPU was
> used by the build.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.com.au>
>
> BTW I think that we need to think about a slightly more complex nice
> to bias mapping function. The current one gives a nice==19 1/20 of
> the bias of a nice=0 task but only gives nice=-20 tasks twice the bias
> of a nice=0 task. I don't think this is a big problem as the majority
> of non nice==0 tasks will have positive nice but should be looked at
> for a future enhancement.
>
> Peter
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Index: MM-2.6.X/kernel/sched.c
>===================================================================
>--- MM-2.6.X.orig/kernel/sched.c 2006-01-13 14:53:34.000000000 +1100
>+++ MM-2.6.X/kernel/sched.c 2006-01-13 15:11:19.000000000 +1100
>@@ -1042,7 +1042,8 @@ void kick_process(task_t *p)
> static unsigned long source_load(int cpu, int type)
> {
> runqueue_t *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>- unsigned long load_now = rq->prio_bias * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
>+ unsigned long load_now = (rq->prio_bias * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) /
>+ NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0);
>
> if (type == 0)
> return load_now;
>@@ -1056,7 +1057,8 @@ static unsigned long source_load(int cpu
> static inline unsigned long target_load(int cpu, int type)
> {
> runqueue_t *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
>- unsigned long load_now = rq->prio_bias * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
>+ unsigned long load_now = (rq->prio_bias * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) /
>+ NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0);
>
> if (type == 0)
> return load_now;
>@@ -1322,7 +1324,8 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(task_t *p, uns
> * of the current CPU:
> */
> if (sync)
>- tl -= p->bias_prio * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
>+ tl -= (p->bias_prio * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) /
>+ NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0);
>
> if ((tl <= load &&
> tl + target_load(cpu, idx) <= SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) ||
>@@ -2159,7 +2162,7 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *
> }
>
> /* Get rid of the scaling factor, rounding down as we divide */
>- *imbalance = *imbalance / SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
>+ *imbalance = (*imbalance * NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0)) / SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
> return busiest;
>
> out_balanced:
>@@ -2472,7 +2475,8 @@ static void rebalance_tick(int this_cpu,
> struct sched_domain *sd;
> int i;
>
>- this_load = this_rq->prio_bias * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
>+ this_load = (this_rq->prio_bias * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) /
>+ NICE_TO_BIAS_PRIO(0);
> /* Update our load */
> for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> unsigned long new_load = this_load;
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-14 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-11 1:14 -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Martin Bligh
2006-01-11 1:31 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11 1:41 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11 1:48 ` Andrew Morton
2006-01-11 1:49 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 2:38 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 3:07 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 3:12 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-11 3:40 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 3:49 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 4:33 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 5:14 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 6:21 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-11 12:24 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 14:29 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-11 22:05 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 0:54 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 1:18 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12 1:29 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 1:36 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12 2:23 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 2:26 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 6:39 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-23 19:28 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-24 1:25 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24 3:50 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24 4:41 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-24 6:22 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-24 6:42 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-28 23:20 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-29 0:52 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12 2:27 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12 2:04 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 6:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-12 6:41 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-12 6:54 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 18:39 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-12 20:03 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-12 22:20 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 7:06 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 12:00 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-13 16:15 ` Martin J. Bligh
2006-01-13 16:26 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 17:54 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-01-13 20:41 ` Martin Bligh
2006-01-14 0:23 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 5:03 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14 5:40 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-14 6:05 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-14 5:53 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 6:13 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-13 22:59 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-14 18:48 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2006-01-15 0:05 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-15 2:04 ` Con Kolivas
2006-01-15 2:09 ` [PATCH] sched - remove unnecessary smpnice ifdefs Con Kolivas
2006-01-15 3:50 ` -mm seems significanty slower than mainline on kernbench Ingo Molnar
2006-01-12 1:25 ` Peter Williams
2006-01-11 1:52 ` Andrew Morton
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=43C9477B.8060709@google.com \
--to=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=apw@shadowen.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.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