From: Charles Wang <muming.wq@taobao.com>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Cc: "'Charles Wang'" <muming.wq@gmail.com>,
"'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"'Tao Ma'" <tm@tao.ma>, '含黛' <handai.szj@taobao.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:42:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FDA066D.2060507@taobao.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000301cd49e8$1dbd2db0$59378910$@net>
于 Thursday, June 14, 2012 12:41 PM, Doug Smythies 写道:
>> On 2012.06.13 00:56 - 0700, Charles Wang wrote:
>
>> Every cpu's load should be the load right on the time executing
>> calculation.
>> This is what my patch expected to do.
>
>> After my patch, it's supposed to let every cpu's load calculation be
>> independent from
>> its idle and other cpus' influence when the calculation is finished.
>> But it seems other problem exists.
>
>> I recorded some trace, show as below:
>
> Charles thanks for your detailed reply.
> I am not sure I agree.
>
> On purpose, I have left out your trace detail from this reply.
> Why? Because I want to take a step back and answer a more fundamental
> question first:
> Is there (or was there) actually a problem that needed to be solved?
>
> I am still not understanding what your expected reported load averages
> for your 16 processes should be. How do you know that the 8 to 10 that
> was being reported was incorrect?
>
I re-create the problem by waiter, using following parameters:
./waiter 16 1800 900 9444 100 1
9444 and 100 is the key point that can make
"processing time+sleeping time" less than 1 tick.
We have 16 processors, and the load of every processor is about 0.25~0.3,
so the actual load should be 16*0.25=4. But the loadavg calculated by the
current logic is only about 1.
> I want to understand so that I can re-create your same reported load
> averages are still to low situation on my test computer, before your patch.
> Then show that it is fixed after your patch.
> I have tried to re-create it and have been unsuccessful. Today, and since
> you
> showed at least 16 CPUs on your system, and I only have 8 CPUs, I tried with
> 8 processes at high duty cycle. The reported load average was always pretty
> close to the actual load (see also attachment).
>
> Perhaps I have some fundamental misunderstanding as to how reported load
> averages should work. I have always used kernels compiled with
> CONFIG_NO_HZ=no (tick based, rather than tickless) as the control reference.
>
________________________________
This email (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you received this email in error, please delete it immediately and do not copy it or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.
本电邮(包括任何附件)可能含有机密资料并受法律保护。如您不是正确的收件人,请您立即删除本邮件。请不要将本电邮进行复制并用作任何其他用途、或透露本邮件之内容。谢谢。
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-14 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-09 10:54 [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate Charles Wang
2012-06-11 15:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
[not found] ` <4FD6BFC4.1060302@gmail.com>
2012-06-12 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-12 9:34 ` Charles Wang
2012-06-12 9:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-13 5:55 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-13 7:56 ` Charles Wang
2012-06-14 4:41 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-14 15:42 ` Charles Wang [this message]
2012-06-16 6:42 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-13 8:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-13 15:33 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-13 21:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-14 3:13 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-18 10:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-07-20 19:24 ` sched: care and feeding of load-avg code (Re: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate) Jonathan Nieder
2012-06-15 14:27 ` [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate Charles Wang
2012-06-15 17:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-16 14:53 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-18 6:41 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-18 14:41 ` Charles Wang
2012-06-18 10:06 ` Charles Wang
2012-06-18 16:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-19 6:08 ` Yong Zhang
2012-06-19 9:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-19 15:50 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-20 9:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-21 4:12 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-21 6:35 ` Charles Wang
2012-06-21 8:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-22 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-24 21:45 ` Doug Smythies
2012-07-03 16:01 ` Doug Smythies
2012-06-25 2:15 ` Charles Wang
2012-07-06 6:19 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/nohz: Rewrite and fix load-avg computation -- again tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
2012-06-19 6:19 ` [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate Doug Smythies
2012-06-19 6:24 ` Charles Wang
2012-06-19 9:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=4FDA066D.2060507@taobao.com \
--to=muming.wq@taobao.com \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=handai.szj@taobao.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=muming.wq@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tm@tao.ma \
/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