From: Balazs Scheidler <bazsi@balabit.hu>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: scheduler oddity [bug?]
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:45:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1236541524.19045.6.camel@bzorp.balabit> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1236451624.16726.32.camel@bzorp.balabit>
On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 19:47 +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-07 at 18:47 +0100, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've tested this on 3 computers and each showed the same symptoms:
> > * quad core Opteron, running Ubuntu kernel 2.6.27-13.29
> > * Core 2 Duo, running Ubuntu kernel 2.6.27-11.27
> > * Dual Core Opteron, Debian backports.org kernel 2.6.26-13~bpo40+1
> >
> > Is this a bug, or a feature?
> >
>
> One new interesting information: I've retested with a 2.6.22 based
> kernel, and it still works there, setting the CPU affinity does not
> change the performance of the test program and mpstat nicely shows that
> 2 cores are working, not just one.
>
> Maybe this is CFS related? That was merged for 2.6.23 IIRC.
>
> Also, I tried changing various scheduler knobs
> in /proc/sys/kernel/sched_* but they didn't help. I've tried to change
> these:
>
> * sched_migration_cost: changed from the default 500000 to 100000 and
> then 10000 but neither helped.
> * sched_nr_migrate: increased it to 64, but again nothing
>
> I'm starting to think that this is a regression that may or may not be
> related to CFS.
>
> I don't have a box where I could bisect on, but the test program makes
> the problem quite obvious.
Some more test results:
Latest tree from Linus seems to work, at least the program runs on both
cores as it should. I bisected the patch that changed behaviour, and
I've found this:
commit 38736f475071b80b66be28af7b44c854073699cc
Author: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat Sep 6 14:50:23 2008 +0530
sched: fix __load_balance_iterator() for cfq with only one task
The __load_balance_iterator() returns a NULL when there's only one
sched_entity which is a task. It is caused by the following code-path.
/* Skip over entities that are not tasks */
do {
se = list_entry(next, struct sched_entity, group_node);
next = next->next;
} while (next != &cfs_rq->tasks && !entity_is_task(se));
if (next == &cfs_rq->tasks)
return NULL;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This will return NULL even when se is a task.
As a side-effect, there was a regression in sched_mc behavior since 2.6.25,
since iter_move_one_task() when it calls load_balance_start_fair(),
would not get any tasks to move!
Fix this by checking if the last entity was a task or not.
Signed-off-by: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This patch was integrated for 2.6.28. With the above patch, my test program uses
two cores as it should. I could only test this in a virtual machine so I don't
know exact performance metrics, but I'll test 2.6.27 + plus this patch on a real
box tomorrow to see if this was the culprit.
I'm not sure if this is related to the avg_overlap discussion (which I honestly
don't really understand :)
--
Bazsi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-08 20:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-07 17:47 Balazs Scheidler
2009-03-07 18:47 ` Balazs Scheidler
2009-03-08 19:45 ` Balazs Scheidler [this message]
2009-03-08 22:03 ` Willy Tarreau
2009-03-09 3:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 11:19 ` David Newall
2009-03-08 9:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-08 9:58 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-08 10:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-08 10:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-08 13:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-08 15:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-08 16:20 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-08 17:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-08 18:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-08 18:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-09 4:10 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 6:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-09 8:02 ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 8:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-09 10:16 ` David Newall
2009-03-09 11:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-09 13:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 13:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-09 13:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 14:00 ` David Newall
2009-03-09 14:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-10 0:20 ` David Newall
2009-03-09 13:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-09 13:58 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 14:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 14:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-09 15:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-09 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-09 17:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-15 13:53 ` Balazs Scheidler
2009-03-15 17:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-03-15 18:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-03-16 11:55 ` Balazs Scheidler
2009-03-09 15:57 ` Balazs Scheidler
2009-03-10 3:16 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1236541524.19045.6.camel@bzorp.balabit \
--to=bazsi@balabit.hu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®