From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, efault@gmx.de,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, bp@alien8.de,
pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 14/15] sched: power aware load balance
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:12:25 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51558C31.1060605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <514FD801.8070403@intel.com>
Hi Alex,
On 03/25/2013 10:22 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 01:14 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the value get from decay_load():
>>>> sa->runnable_avg_sum = decay_load(sa->runnable_avg_sum,
>>>> in decay_load it is possible to be set zero.
>> Yes you are right, it is possible to be set to 0, but after a very long
>> time, to be more precise, nearly 2 seconds. If you look at decay_load(),
>> if the period between last update and now has crossed (32*63),only then
>> will the runnable_avg_sum become 0, else it will simply decay.
>>
>> This means that for nearly 2seconds,consolidation of loads may not be
>> possible even after the runqueues have finished executing tasks running
>> on them.
>
> Look into the decay_load(), since the LOAD_AVG_MAX is about 47742, so
> after 16 * 32ms, the maximum avg sum will be decay to zero. 2^16 = 65536
>
> Yes, compare to accumulate time 345ms, the decay is not symmetry, and
> not precise, seems it has space to tune well. But it is acceptable now.
>>
>> The exact experiment that I performed was running ebizzy, with just two
>> threads. My setup was 2 socket,2 cores each,4 threads each core. So a 16
>> logical cpu machine.When I begin running ebizzy with balance policy, the
>> 2 threads of ebizzy are found one on each socket, while I would expect
>> them to be on the same socket. All other cpus, except the ones running
>> ebizzy threads are idle and not running anything on either socket.
>> I am not running any other processes.
>
> did you try the simplest benchmark: while true; do :; done
Yeah I tried out this while true; do :; done benchmark on a vm which ran
on 2 socket, 2 cores each socket and 2 threads each core emulation.
I ran two instances of this loop with balance policy on, and it was
found that there was one instance running on each socket, rather than
both instances getting consolidated on one socket.
But when I apply the change where we do not consider rq->util if it has
no nr_running on the rq,the two instances of the above benchmark get
consolidated onto one socket.
> I am writing the v6 version which include rt_util etc. you may test on
> it after I send out. :)
Sure will do so.
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-29 12:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-18 5:07 [patch v5 0/15] power aware scheduling Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 01/15] sched: set initial value for runnable avg of sched entities Alex Shi
2013-02-18 8:28 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-18 9:16 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 02/15] sched: set initial load avg of new forked task Alex Shi
2013-02-20 6:20 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-24 10:57 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-02-25 6:00 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-28 7:03 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-02-25 7:12 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 03/15] Revert "sched: Introduce temporary FAIR_GROUP_SCHED dependency for load-tracking" Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 04/15] sched: add sched balance policies in kernel Alex Shi
2013-02-20 9:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-20 13:40 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 15:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-02-21 1:43 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 05/15] sched: add sysfs interface for sched_balance_policy selection Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 06/15] sched: log the cpu utilization at rq Alex Shi
2013-02-20 9:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 12:09 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-02-20 13:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 14:36 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 14:33 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 15:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-21 1:35 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-25 2:26 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-22 8:49 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 12:19 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-02-20 12:39 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 07/15] sched: add new sg/sd_lb_stats fields for incoming fork/exec/wake balancing Alex Shi
2013-02-20 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 12:27 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 08/15] sched: move sg/sd_lb_stats struct ahead Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 09/15] sched: add power aware scheduling in fork/exec/wake Alex Shi
2013-02-20 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 12:09 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 13:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 14:23 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-21 13:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-21 14:40 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-22 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-24 9:27 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-24 9:49 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-02-24 11:55 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-24 17:51 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-02-25 2:23 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-25 3:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-25 9:53 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-25 10:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 10/15] sched: packing transitory tasks in wake/exec power balancing Alex Shi
2013-02-18 8:44 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-02-18 8:56 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 5:55 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 7:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-20 8:11 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 8:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-02-20 8:54 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 11/15] sched: add power/performance balance allow flag Alex Shi
2013-02-20 9:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 12:04 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 13:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-02-20 14:08 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 13:52 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 12:12 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-02-20 14:20 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-20 15:22 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-02-21 1:32 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-21 9:42 ` Borislav Petkov
2013-02-21 14:52 ` Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 12/15] sched: pull all tasks from source group Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 13/15] sched: no balance for prefer_sibling in power scheduling Alex Shi
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 14/15] sched: power aware load balance Alex Shi
2013-03-20 4:57 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-21 7:43 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-21 8:41 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-21 9:27 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-21 10:27 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-22 1:30 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-22 5:14 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-25 4:52 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-29 12:42 ` Preeti U Murthy [this message]
2013-03-29 13:39 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-30 11:25 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-03-30 14:04 ` Alex Shi
2013-03-30 15:31 ` Preeti U Murthy
2013-02-18 5:07 ` [patch v5 15/15] sched: lazy power balance Alex Shi
2013-02-18 7:44 ` [patch v5 0/15] power aware scheduling Alex Shi
2013-02-19 12:08 ` Paul Turner
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=51558C31.1060605@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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).