From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756627Ab3C3OFJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:05:09 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:3056 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755314Ab3C3OFH (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:05:07 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,378,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="220560347" Message-ID: <5156F103.6000508@intel.com> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:04:51 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Preeti U Murthy 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 References: <1361164062-20111-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1361164062-20111-15-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <514941C5.6080007@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <514ABA19.1080807@intel.com> <514AC7B2.7030400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <514AD26F.9010905@intel.com> <514AE07A.10100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <514BB452.2070906@intel.com> <514BE8AC.6000607@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <514FD801.8070403@intel.com> <51558C31.1060605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <515599AD.5090901@intel.com> <5156CB90.5060209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <5156CB90.5060209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/30/2013 07:25 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: >> > I still give the rq->util weight even the nr_running is 0, because some >> > transitory tasks may actived on the cpu, but just missed on balancing point. >> > >> > I just wondering that forgetting rq->util when nr_running = 0 is the >> > real root cause if your finding is just on VM and without fixed VCPU to >> > CPU pin. > I find the same situation on a physical machine too. On a 2 socket, 4 > core machine as well. In fact, using trace_printks in the load balancing > part, I could find that the reason that the load was not getting > consolidated onto a socket was because the rq->util of a run-queue with > no processes on it, had not decayed to 0, which is why it would consider > the socket as overloaded and would rule out power aware balancing.All > this was on a physical machine. Consider of this situation, we may stop account the rq->util when nr_running is zero. Tasks will be a bit more compact. but anyway, that's powersaving policy. -- Thanks Alex