mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched: make fix_small_imbalance work with asymmetric packing
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:31:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271161769.4807.1283.camel@twins>

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 05:29 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:21 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > With the asymmetric packing infrastructure, fix_small_imbalance is
> > causing idle higher threads to pull tasks off lower threads.  
> > 
> > This is being caused by an off-by-one error.  
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> > ---
> > I'm not sure this is the right fix but without it, higher threads pull
> > tasks off the lower threads, then the packing pulls it back down, etc
> > etc and tasks bounce around constantly.
> 
> Would help if you expand upon the why/how it manages to get pulled up.
> 
> I can't immediately spot anything wrong with the patch, but then that
> isn't my favourite piece of code either.. Suresh, any comments?
> 

Sorry didn't pay much attention to this patchset. But based on the
comments from Michael and looking at this patchset, it has SMT/MC
implications. I will review and run some tests and get back in a day.

As far as this particular patch is concerned, original code is coming
from Ingo's original CFS code commit (dd41f596) and the below hunk
pretty much explains what the change is about.

-               if (max_load - this_load >= busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {
+               if (max_load - this_load + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE_FUZZ >=
+                                       busiest_load_per_task * imbn) {

So the below proposed change will probably break what the above
mentioned commit was trying to achieve, which is: for fairness reasons
we were bouncing the small extra load (between the max_load and
this_load) around.

> > ---
> > 
> >  kernel/sched_fair.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6-ozlabs.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > +++ linux-2.6-ozlabs/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > @@ -2652,7 +2652,7 @@ static inline void fix_small_imbalance(s
> >  						 * SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
> >  	scaled_busy_load_per_task /= sds->busiest->cpu_power;
> >  
> > -	if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >=
> > +	if (sds->max_load - sds->this_load + scaled_busy_load_per_task >
> >  			(scaled_busy_load_per_task * imbn)) {
> >  		*imbalance = sds->busiest_load_per_task;
> >  		return;
> 

thanks,
suresh


  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-14  1:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-04-09  6:21 [PATCH 0/5] sched: asymmetrical packing for POWER7 SMT4 Michael Neuling
2010-04-09  6:21 ` [PATCH 2/5] sched: add asymmetric packing option for sibling domain Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14  6:09     ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09  6:21 ` [PATCH 3/5] powerpc: enabled asymmetric SMT scheduling on POWER7 Michael Neuling
2010-04-09  6:48   ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09  6:21 ` [PATCH 1/5] sched: fix capacity calculations for SMT4 Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14  4:28     ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-16 13:58       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-18 21:34         ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-19 14:49           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-19 20:45             ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-29  6:55         ` Michael Neuling
2010-05-31  8:33         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-01 22:52           ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2010-06-03  8:56             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-07 15:06           ` Srivatsa Vaddagiri
2010-04-09  6:21 ` [PATCH 4/5] sched: Mark the balance type for use in need_active_balance() Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-15  4:15     ` Michael Neuling
2010-04-09  6:21 ` [PATCH 5/5] sched: make fix_small_imbalance work with asymmetric packing Michael Neuling
2010-04-13 12:29   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-04-14  1:31     ` Suresh Siddha [this message]
2010-04-15  5:06       ` Michael Neuling

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=1271208670.2834.55.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com \
    --to=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mikey@neuling.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.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®