From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
Changlong Xie <changlongx.xie@intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Load balancing behavior for sched autogroup
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:20:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1364599219.27102.56.camel@schen9-DESK> (raw)
During our testings of 3.8 kernel, we noticed that after the patch
Revert "sched: Update_cfs_shares at period edge" (commit 17bc14b7),
the load between the sockets or larger system can have
large imbalance. For example, for a 4 socket Westmere-EX
(10 cores/socket), we notice the loadings between the sockets
can differ by more than a factor of 4.
We did a simple experiment that kicks off 29 simple
processes that execute a tight loop. We noticed
socket 3 is already starting to schedule on hyperthreaded cpus
(13 loaded cpus) while socket 1 still have lots of
idle cores (3 loaded cpus). Before the patch, the
load was evenly distributed across sockets.
If I turn off CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP,the loads are also
distributed evenly.
(load on cpus, running on 4)
socket 0 1 2 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cpu: 0-3 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.00
cpu: 4-7 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.20
cpu: 8-11 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.00
cpu: 12-15 99.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
cpu: 16-19 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.00
cpu: 20-23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
cpu: 24-27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
cpu: 28-31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
cpu: 32-35 99.20 0.00 0.00 99.00
cpu: 36-39 99.20 99.40 99.20 0.00
cpu: 40-43 0.00 99.40 99.40 99.20
cpu: 44-47 0.00 99.40 99.40 99.20
cpu: 48-51 99.40 0.00 99.40 99.20
cpu: 52-55 99.20 0.00 99.40 99.20
cpu: 56-59 0.00 0.00 99.40 99.40
cpu: 60-63 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.00
cpu: 64-67 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.40
cpu: 68-71 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.40
cpu: 72-75 99.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
cpu: 76-79 99.40 0.00 0.00 0.00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaded cpus 7 3 6 13
Is this the intended behavior of sched autogroup? I'm a bit surprised
that we are reserving this much cpu bandwidth for very low load
processes (or interactive processes) in other groups.
So should the sched autogroup config option be turned off by default for server
system, when we are not concerned about interactivity but want to maximize
throughput by balancing out the load?
Thanks for clarifying.
Tim
next reply other threads:[~2013-03-29 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-29 23:20 Tim Chen [this message]
2013-03-29 23:35 ` Paul Turner
2013-04-08 16:19 ` Tim Chen
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=1364599219.27102.56.camel@schen9-DESK \
--to=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=changlongx.xie@intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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®