* Re: High priority threads causing severe CPU load imbalances
2010-04-06 14:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2010-04-06 16:35 ` Suresh Jayaraman
2010-04-08 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-07 4:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2010-04-07 5:46 ` Masayuki Igawa
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Suresh Jayaraman @ 2010-04-06 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: LKML, Ingo Molnar
On 04/06/2010 07:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:42 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
>> I have a simple test program that accepts number of threads(pthreads) to
>> be created as a input. Each of these threads that gets created invokes a
>> function which is just a infinite while loop. The main function after
>> creating those threads goes in a infinite loop itself
>>
>> My test machine is a Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) 860 with 8
>> sockets(non-HT), I run this test program with number of threads ==
>> number of CPUs:
>>
>> ./loadcpu -t 16
>>
>> I see 100% CPU utilization on almost all CPUs (via mpstat/htop/vmstat).
>>
>> When the above threads are running, if I introduce a few high priority
>> threads by doing:
>>
>> nice -n -13 ./loadcpu -t 3
>>
>> After a short while, I see a few CPUs becoming idle at ~0% utilization
>> (the number of CPUs becoming idle equals roughly the number of high
>> priority threads i.e. 3). When I stop the high priority threads, the CPU
>> utilization comes back to normal i.e. ~100%.
>>
>> This is reproducible on 2.6.32.10 stable kernel with all the recent all
>> SMT fixes (I hope) and I think it would be reproducible in current
>> upstream as well.
>
> Why bother using -stable for reporting bugs?
It was not intentional. It just happened that I first noticed the bug on
a 32.10 kernel.
>> sched_mc_power_savings has been always set to 0.
>>
>> I spent a while staring at the load balancing and the thread migration
>> code, but could not figure out why this is happening. Would appreciate
>> any pointers.
>
> Right, except its not a severe imbalance as the subject suggests. For
> some reason it seems to end up in a semi-stable state that is actually
> quite balanced.
In my reproduction attempt the number of CPUs becoming idle increased
with the number of high priority threads. For e.g.
3 (out of 16 CPUs) become idle when there were 3 high priority threads
5 CPUs become idle when there were 4 high priority threads
7 CPUs become idle when there were 5 high priority threads (~40% )
But, I also starting to think it is some wierd combination of normal
priority threads and high priority threads make the problem worse or
good. Because with 7 or higher threads the utilization becomes smoother
again.
The increasing number of idle CPUs made me think that it could be severe..
>
> for ((i=0; i<8; i++)) do while :; do :; done & done
> for ((i=0; i<3; i++)) do while :; do :; done & renice -n -15 -p $! ;
> done
>
> gets me:
>
> Cpu0 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu1 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu2 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu3 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu4 : 99.0%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu5 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu6 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu7 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Mem: 16440840k total, 1073672k used, 15367168k free, 105844k buffers
> Swap: 16777212k total, 0k used, 16777212k free, 296504k cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 4370 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 100.1 0.0 0:45.02 bash
> 4374 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 100.1 0.0 0:44.95 bash
> 4372 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 99.1 0.0 0:45.00 bash
> 4364 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 51.0 0.0 0:33.06 bash
> 4362 root 20 0 105m 800 300 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.17 bash
> 4365 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.75 bash
> 4368 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.32 bash
> 4369 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.38 bash
> 4363 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.65 bash
> 4366 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.29 bash
> 4367 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.54 bash
>
> So we have the 3 -15 loops on a cpu each, and the 8 0 loops on 2 cpus
> each, and 1 cpu idle. That is actually quite balanced, 'better' would be
> if those 0 loops would rotate over the 5 available cpus, but that would
> also trash more caches I guess.
Perhaps there is a chance that with more CPUs, different number of high
priority threads the problem could get worser as I mentioned above..?
Thanks,
--
Suresh Jayaraman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: High priority threads causing severe CPU load imbalances
2010-04-06 16:35 ` Suresh Jayaraman
@ 2010-04-08 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-09 2:20 ` Masayuki Igawa
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2010-04-08 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Suresh Jayaraman; +Cc: LKML, Ingo Molnar, Masayuki Igawa
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 22:05 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
> Perhaps there is a chance that with more CPUs, different number of high
> priority threads the problem could get worser as I mentioned above..?
One thing that could be happening (triggered by what Igawa-san said,
although his case is more complicated by involving the cgroup stuff) is
that f_b_g() ends up selecting a group that contains these niced tasks
and then f_b_q() will not find a suitable source queue because all of
them will have but a single runnable task on it and hence we simply
bail.
We'd somehow have to teach update_*_lb_stats() not to consider groups
where nr_running <= nr_cpus. I don't currently have a patch for that,
but I think that is the direction you might need to look in.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: High priority threads causing severe CPU load imbalances
2010-04-08 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2010-04-09 2:20 ` Masayuki Igawa
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Masayuki Igawa @ 2010-04-09 2:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: peterz; +Cc: sjayaraman, linux-kernel, mingo
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: High priority threads causing severe CPU load imbalances
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:15:44 +0200
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 22:05 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
>> Perhaps there is a chance that with more CPUs, different number of high
>> priority threads the problem could get worser as I mentioned above..?
>
> One thing that could be happening (triggered by what Igawa-san said,
> although his case is more complicated by involving the cgroup stuff) is
> that f_b_g() ends up selecting a group that contains these niced tasks
> and then f_b_q() will not find a suitable source queue because all of
> them will have but a single runnable task on it and hence we simply
> bail.
>
> We'd somehow have to teach update_*_lb_stats() not to consider groups
> where nr_running <= nr_cpus. I don't currently have a patch for that,
> but I think that is the direction you might need to look in.
I made a patch for my understanding the load_balance()'s behavior.
This patch reduced CPU load imbalances but not perfect.
---
Cpu0 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu1 : 90.1%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 9.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu2 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu3 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu4 : 98.7%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 1.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu5 : 96.1%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 3.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu6 : 99.0%us, 0.7%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st
Cpu7 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 8032460k total, 807628k used, 7224832k free, 30692k buffers
Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 347308k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
9872 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 99 0.0 0:13.69 4 bash
9876 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 99 0.0 0:10.31 2 bash
9877 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 99 0.0 0:10.79 3 bash
9871 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 99 0.0 0:13.70 0 bash
9873 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 99 0.0 0:13.68 1 bash
9874 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 98 0.0 0:10.00 6 bash
9875 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 92 0.0 0:11.22 4 bash
9878 root 20 0 66128 632 268 R 91 0.0 0:10.03 7 bash
---
Also, this patch caused ping-pong load balances..
This patch is regards the sched_group as a idle sched_group
if local sched_group's cpu is CPU_IDLE.
But the state is not stable because active_load_balance() runs at this situation IIUC.
I'll investigate more.
===
diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
index 5a5ea2c..806be90 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -2418,6 +2418,7 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
int i;
unsigned int balance_cpu = -1, first_idle_cpu = 0;
unsigned long avg_load_per_task = 0;
+ int idle_group = 0;
if (local_group)
balance_cpu = group_first_cpu(group);
@@ -2440,6 +2441,12 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
}
load = target_load(i, load_idx);
+ /* This group is idle if it has a idle cpu. */
+ if (idle == CPU_IDLE) {
+ idle_group = 1;
+ sgs->group_load = 0;
+ sgs->sum_weighted_load = 0;
+ }
} else {
load = source_load(i, load_idx);
if (load > max_cpu_load)
@@ -2451,6 +2458,10 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(struct sched_domain *sd,
sgs->group_load += load;
sgs->sum_nr_running += rq->nr_running;
sgs->sum_weighted_load += weighted_cpuload(i);
+ if (!idle_group) {
+ sgs->group_load += load;
+ sgs->sum_weighted_load += weighted_cpuload(i);
+ }
}
===
Thanks.
--
Masayuki Igawa
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: High priority threads causing severe CPU load imbalances
2010-04-06 14:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 16:35 ` Suresh Jayaraman
@ 2010-04-07 4:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2010-04-07 7:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-07 5:46 ` Masayuki Igawa
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andy Lutomirski @ 2010-04-07 4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Suresh Jayaraman, LKML, Ingo Molnar
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:42 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
>> I have a simple test program that accepts number of threads(pthreads) to
>> be created as a input. Each of these threads that gets created invokes a
>> function which is just a infinite while loop. The main function after
>> creating those threads goes in a infinite loop itself
>>
>> My test machine is a Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) 860 with 8
>> sockets(non-HT), I run this test program with number of threads ==
>> number of CPUs:
>>
>> ./loadcpu -t 16
>>
>> I see 100% CPU utilization on almost all CPUs (via mpstat/htop/vmstat).
>>
>> When the above threads are running, if I introduce a few high priority
>> threads by doing:
>>
>> nice -n -13 ./loadcpu -t 3
>>
>> After a short while, I see a few CPUs becoming idle at ~0% utilization
>> (the number of CPUs becoming idle equals roughly the number of high
>> priority threads i.e. 3). When I stop the high priority threads, the CPU
>> utilization comes back to normal i.e. ~100%.
>>
>> This is reproducible on 2.6.32.10 stable kernel with all the recent all
>> SMT fixes (I hope) and I think it would be reproducible in current
>> upstream as well.
>
> Why bother using -stable for reporting bugs?
>
>> sched_mc_power_savings has been always set to 0.
>>
>> I spent a while staring at the load balancing and the thread migration
>> code, but could not figure out why this is happening. Would appreciate
>> any pointers.
>
> Right, except its not a severe imbalance as the subject suggests. For
> some reason it seems to end up in a semi-stable state that is actually
> quite balanced.
>
> for ((i=0; i<8; i++)) do while :; do :; done & done
> for ((i=0; i<3; i++)) do while :; do :; done & renice -n -15 -p $! ;
> done
>
> gets me:
>
> Cpu0 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu1 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu2 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu3 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu4 : 99.0%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu5 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu6 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu7 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Mem: 16440840k total, 1073672k used, 15367168k free, 105844k buffers
> Swap: 16777212k total, 0k used, 16777212k free, 296504k cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 4370 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 100.1 0.0 0:45.02 bash
> 4374 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 100.1 0.0 0:44.95 bash
> 4372 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 99.1 0.0 0:45.00 bash
> 4364 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 51.0 0.0 0:33.06 bash
> 4362 root 20 0 105m 800 300 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.17 bash
> 4365 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.75 bash
> 4368 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.32 bash
> 4369 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.38 bash
> 4363 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.65 bash
> 4366 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.29 bash
> 4367 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.54 bash
>
> So we have the 3 -15 loops on a cpu each, and the 8 0 loops on 2 cpus
> each, and 1 cpu idle. That is actually quite balanced, 'better' would be
> if those 0 loops would rotate over the 5 available cpus, but that would
> also trash more caches I guess.
What's wrong with having the three -15 loops each get a CPU, having six
of the remaining 0 loops get half a CPU, and the last two get their own
CPUs. That's less fair but strictly better than the current solution,
and nothing bounces.
--Andy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: High priority threads causing severe CPU load imbalances
2010-04-07 4:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
@ 2010-04-07 7:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2010-04-07 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Lutomirski; +Cc: Suresh Jayaraman, LKML, Ingo Molnar
On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 00:42 -0400, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> That's less fair but strictly better than the current solution,
> and nothing bounces.
The fairness thing, that really matters a lot to some people.
I've had enterprise bugs filed over such behaviour as you describe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: High priority threads causing severe CPU load imbalances
2010-04-06 14:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-06 16:35 ` Suresh Jayaraman
2010-04-07 4:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
@ 2010-04-07 5:46 ` Masayuki Igawa
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Masayuki Igawa @ 2010-04-07 5:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Suresh Jayaraman, LKML, Ingo Molnar
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:08:10 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:42 +0530, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
> > I have a simple test program that accepts number of threads(pthreads) to
> > be created as a input. Each of these threads that gets created invokes a
> > function which is just a infinite while loop. The main function after
> > creating those threads goes in a infinite loop itself
> >
> > My test machine is a Dual Core AMD Opteron(tm) 860 with 8
> > sockets(non-HT), I run this test program with number of threads ==
> > number of CPUs:
> >
> > ./loadcpu -t 16
> >
> > I see 100% CPU utilization on almost all CPUs (via mpstat/htop/vmstat).
> >
> > When the above threads are running, if I introduce a few high priority
> > threads by doing:
> >
> > nice -n -13 ./loadcpu -t 3
> >
> > After a short while, I see a few CPUs becoming idle at ~0% utilization
> > (the number of CPUs becoming idle equals roughly the number of high
> > priority threads i.e. 3). When I stop the high priority threads, the CPU
> > utilization comes back to normal i.e. ~100%.
> >
> > This is reproducible on 2.6.32.10 stable kernel with all the recent all
> > SMT fixes (I hope) and I think it would be reproducible in current
> > upstream as well.
>
> Why bother using -stable for reporting bugs?
>
> > sched_mc_power_savings has been always set to 0.
> >
> > I spent a while staring at the load balancing and the thread migration
> > code, but could not figure out why this is happening. Would appreciate
> > any pointers.
>
> Right, except its not a severe imbalance as the subject suggests. For
> some reason it seems to end up in a semi-stable state that is actually
> quite balanced.
>
> for ((i=0; i<8; i++)) do while :; do :; done & done
> for ((i=0; i<3; i++)) do while :; do :; done & renice -n -15 -p $! ;
> done
>
> gets me:
>
> Cpu0 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu1 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu2 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu3 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu4 : 99.0%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu5 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu6 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Cpu7 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
> Mem: 16440840k total, 1073672k used, 15367168k free, 105844k buffers
> Swap: 16777212k total, 0k used, 16777212k free, 296504k cached
>
> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
> 4370 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 100.1 0.0 0:45.02 bash
> 4374 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 100.1 0.0 0:44.95 bash
> 4372 root 5 -15 105m 804 304 R 99.1 0.0 0:45.00 bash
> 4364 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 51.0 0.0 0:33.06 bash
> 4362 root 20 0 105m 800 300 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.17 bash
> 4365 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.75 bash
> 4368 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.32 bash
> 4369 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 50.0 0.0 0:33.38 bash
> 4363 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.65 bash
> 4366 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.29 bash
> 4367 root 20 0 105m 804 304 R 49.1 0.0 0:33.54 bash
>
> So we have the 3 -15 loops on a cpu each, and the 8 0 loops on 2 cpus
> each, and 1 cpu idle. That is actually quite balanced, 'better' would be
> if those 0 loops would rotate over the 5 available cpus, but that would
> also trash more caches I guess.
>
> I'm not quite sure what makes the load-balancer end up in this situation
> though, but I suspect the various imbalance_pct things might have
> something to do with it.
>
> It doesn't always end up in this state either, if you only start 2 -15
> loops its a roll of the dice on what happens, sometimes it ends up with
> the 6 cpus cycling the 2 extra tasks around, sometimes its 1 cpu idle
> with cycling 1 task.
>
> Unexpected, maybe, severe imbalance, no. Would be nice to get it to be a
> little more stable behaviour though.
I found a similar(maybe same) problem by using the cgroup cpu-subsystem like following:
My test machine has Xeon(Quad Core) with 2 sockets(non-HT).
# mount -t cgroup -o cpu none /dev/cgroup-cpu/
# mkdir -p /dev/cgroup-cpu/204800 /dev/cgroup-cpu/1024
# echo 204800 > /dev/cgroup-cpu/204800/cpu.shares
# for ((i=0; i<3; i++)) do while :; do :; done & echo $! > /dev/cgroup-cpu/204800/tasks ; done
# for ((i=0; i<5; i++)) do while :; do :; done & echo $! > /dev/cgroup-cpu/1024/tasks ; done
gets me:
Tasks: 190 total, 9 running, 181 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 1.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st
Cpu2 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu3 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu4 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu5 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu6 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Cpu7 :100.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 8180292k total, 2430940k used, 5749352k free, 204988k buffers
Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 1931820k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ P COMMAND
30923 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 100 0.0 2:30.64 3 bash
30922 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 100 0.0 2:30.64 2 bash
30924 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 100 0.0 2:30.63 6 bash
30925 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 42 0.0 1:00.19 7 bash
30928 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 41 0.0 0:57.26 5 bash
30929 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 40 0.0 0:57.03 7 bash
30926 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 39 0.0 0:58.37 7 bash
30927 root 20 0 5808 540 264 R 39 0.0 0:58.57 5 bash
I don't expect this behavior.
(I expect that all 8 processes use 100%CPU.)
So I'm investigating this problem.
And I suspect that the cause is find_busiest_group() returns the sched_group
(as the busiest sched_group) with a high priority process
although this sched_group has a 100% idle cpu.
IIUC, This problem was caused by changing the load calculation way by this patch,
---
commit 2dd73a4f09beacadde827a032cf15fd8b1fa3d48
Author: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Date: Tue Jun 27 02:54:34 2006 -0700
[PATCH] sched: implement smpnice
---
This patch changed the load calculation way from nr_running to weighted_load.
So the scheduler looks on the high priority process as many processes in the load calculation.
I don't find the solution of this problem yet.
I'll dig down more to find the solution.
Thanks.
--
Masayuki Igawa
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread