From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
Paul McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Venki Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@arm.com>,
Lists linaro-dev <linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: sched: Consequences of integrating the Per Entity Load Tracking Metric into the Load Balancer
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:30:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50FC0DB1.6050605@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50ECE097.7010609@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 01/09/2013 11:14 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>>>> Here comes the point of making both load balancing and wake up
>>>>> balance(select_idle_sibling) co operative. How about we always schedule
>>>>> the woken up task on the prev_cpu? This seems more sensible considering
>>>>> load balancing considers blocked load as being a part of the load of cpu2.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Preeti,
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that we want such steady state at cores level because we
>>>> take advantage of migrating wake up tasks between cores that share
>>>> their cache as Matthew demonstrated. But I agree that reaching such
>>>> steady state at cluster and CPU level is interesting.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, you're right that taking the blocked load into consideration
>>>> should minimize tasks migration between cluster but it should no
>>>> prevent fast task migration between cores that share their cache
>>>
>>> True Vincent.But I think the one disadvantage even at cpu or cluster
>>> level is that when we consider blocked load, we might prevent any more
>>> tasks from being scheduled on that cpu during periodic load balance if
>>> the blocked load is too much.This is very poor cpu utilization
>>
>> The blocked load of a cluster will be high if the blocked tasks have
>> run recently. The contribution of a blocked task will be divided by 2
>> each 32ms, so it means that a high blocked load will be made of recent
>> running tasks and the long sleeping tasks will not influence the load
>> balancing.
>> The load balance period is between 1 tick (10ms for idle load balance
>> on ARM) and up to 256 ms (for busy load balance) so a high blocked
>> load should imply some tasks that have run recently otherwise your
>> blocked load will be small and will not have a large influence on your
>> load balance
Just tried using cfs's runnable_load_avg + blocked_load_avg in
weighted_cpuload() with my v3 patchset, aim9 shared workfile testing
show the performance dropped 70% more on the NHM EP machine. :(
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-20 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-02 4:22 sched: Consequences of integrating the Per Entity Load Tracking Metric into the Load Balancer Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-02 8:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-03 10:38 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-03 20:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-04 11:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-05 8:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-06 16:32 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-07 5:29 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-07 7:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-08 8:41 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-16 14:08 ` Alex Shi
2013-01-17 5:17 ` Namhyung Kim
2013-01-17 10:16 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-17 13:41 ` Alex Shi
2013-01-24 3:13 ` Alex Shi
2013-01-17 8:45 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-07 15:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-01-08 6:06 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-08 14:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2013-01-09 3:14 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-20 15:30 ` Alex Shi [this message]
2013-01-20 15:52 ` Alex Shi
2013-01-21 2:40 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-01-21 3:26 ` Alex Shi
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=50FC0DB1.6050605@intel.com \
--to=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amit.kucheria@linaro.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bitbucket@online.de \
--cc=linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=paul.mckenney@linaro.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=robin.randhawa@arm.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=venki@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).