From: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
Subject: Re: RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 22:53:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <490FC735.1070405@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1225751603.7803.1640.camel@twins>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2063 bytes --]
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:07 -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
>
>> When load balancing gets switched off for a set of cpus via the
>> sched_load_balance flag in cpusets, those cpus wind up with the
>> globally defined def_root_domain attached. The def_root_domain is
>> attached when partition_sched_domains calls detach_destroy_domains().
>> A new root_domain is never allocated or attached as a sched domain
>> will never be attached by __build_sched_domains() for the non-load
>> balanced processors.
>>
>> The problem with this scenario is that on systems with a large number
>> of processors with load balancing switched off, we start to see the
>> cpupri->pri_to_cpu->lock in the def_root_domain becoming contended.
>> This starts to become much more apparent above 8 waking RT threads
>> (with each RT thread running on it's own cpu, blocking and waking up
>> continuously).
>>
>> I'm wondering if this is, in fact, the way things were meant to work,
>> or should we have a root domain allocated for each cpu that is not to
>> be part of a sched domain? Note the the def_root_domain spans all of
>> the non-load-balanced cpus in this case. Having it attached to cpus
>> that should not be load balancing doesn't quite make sense to me.
>>
>
> It shouldn't be like that, each load-balance domain (in your case a
> single cpu) should get its own root domain. Gregory?
>
Yeah, this sounds broken. I know that the root-domain code was being
developed coincident to some upheaval with the cpuset code, so I suspect
something may have been broken from the original intent. I will take a
look.
-Greg
>
>> Here's where we've often seen this lock contention occur:
>>
>
> what's this horrible output from?
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-04 3:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-03 21:07 RT sched: cpupri_vec lock contention with def_root_domain and no load balance Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-03 22:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-04 1:29 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-04 3:53 ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2008-11-04 14:34 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-11-04 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-11-04 14:40 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-04 14:59 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-11-19 19:49 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-11-19 19:55 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-19 20:17 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-11-19 20:21 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-19 20:25 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-11-19 20:33 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-19 21:30 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-11-19 21:47 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-19 22:25 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-11-20 2:12 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-11-21 1:57 ` Gregory Haskins
2008-11-21 20:04 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-11-21 21:18 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-22 7:03 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-11-22 8:18 ` Li Zefan
2008-11-24 15:11 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-24 21:47 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-11-24 21:46 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-11-04 14:45 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-11-06 9:13 ` Nish Aravamudan
2008-11-06 13:32 ` Dimitri Sivanich
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=490FC735.1070405@novell.com \
--to=ghaskins@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sivanich@sgi.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