From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>,
Ken Chen <kenchen@google.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Large weight differential leads to inefficient load balancing
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:32:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1280496739.10435.10.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1280467146-32218-1-git-send-email-ncrao@google.com>
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 22:19 -0700, Nikhil Rao wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have observed that a large weight differential between tasks on a runqueue
> leads to sub-optimal machine utilization and poor load balancing. For example,
> if you have lots of SCHED_IDLE tasks (sufficient number to keep the machine 100%
> busy) and a few SCHED_NORMAL soaker tasks, we see that the machine has
> significant idle time.
>
> The data below highlights this problem. The test machine is a 4 socket quad-core
> box (16 cpus). These experiemnts were done with v2.6.25-rc6. We spawn 16
> SCHED_IDLE soaker threads (one per-cpu) to completely fill up the machine. CPU
> utilization numbers gathered from mpstat for 10s are:
>
> 03:30:24 PM CPU %user %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal %idle intr/s
> 03:30:25 PM all 99.94 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16234.65
> 03:30:26 PM all 99.88 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16374.00
> 03:30:27 PM all 99.94 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16392.00
> 03:30:28 PM all 99.94 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16612.12
> 03:30:29 PM all 99.88 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16375.00
> 03:30:30 PM all 99.94 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16440.00
> 03:30:31 PM all 99.81 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16237.62
> 03:30:32 PM all 99.94 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16360.00
> 03:30:33 PM all 99.94 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16405.00
> 03:30:34 PM all 99.38 0.06 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 18881.82
> Average: all 99.86 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 16628.20
>
> We then spawn one SCHED_NORMAL while-1 task (the absolute number does not matter
> so long as we introduce some large weight differential).
>
> 03:40:57 PM CPU %user %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal %idle intr/s
> 03:40:58 PM all 83.06 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.88 14555.00
> 03:40:59 PM all 78.25 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.69 14527.00
> 03:41:00 PM all 82.71 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.17 14879.00
> 03:41:01 PM all 87.34 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.59 15466.00
> 03:41:02 PM all 80.80 0.06 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.95 14584.00
> 03:41:03 PM all 82.90 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.04 14570.00
> 03:41:04 PM all 79.45 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.49 14536.00
> 03:41:05 PM all 86.48 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.46 14577.00
> 03:41:06 PM all 76.73 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 23.10 14594.00
> 03:41:07 PM all 86.48 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.45 14703.03
> Average: all 82.31 0.02 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 17.59 14699.10
What happens with s/SCHED_IDLE/nice 19?
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-30 13:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-30 5:19 Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 5:19 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched: account SCHED_IDLE tasks on rq->idle_nr_running Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 5:19 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched: add SD_IDLE_LOAD_BALANCE to sched domain flags Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 5:19 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched: add moving average of time spent servicing SCHED_NORMAL tasks Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 5:19 ` [PATCH 4/6] sched: add sched_idle_balance argument to lb functions Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 5:19 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched: add SCHED_IDLE load balancer Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 5:19 ` [PATCH 6/6] sched: enable SD_IDLE_LOAD_BALANCE on MC, CPU and NUMA (x86) domains Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 13:32 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2010-07-30 18:59 ` [PATCH 0/6] [RFC] Large weight differential leads to inefficient load balancing Nikhil Rao
2010-07-30 19:03 ` Paul Turner
2010-08-02 11:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-03 21:28 ` Nikhil Rao
2010-08-04 10:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=1280496739.10435.10.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=kenchen@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ncrao@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=venki@google.com \
/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®