From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"daniel.lezcano@linaro.org" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
"fweisbec@gmail.com" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"fenghua.yu@intel.com" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"arjan@linux.intel.com" <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
"pjt@google.com" <pjt@google.com>,
"fengguang.wu@intel.com" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
"james.hogan@imgtec.com" <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
"jason.low2@hp.com" <jason.low2@hp.com>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"hanjun.guo@linaro.org" <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: bias to target cpu load to reduce task moving
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:15:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140107131523.GX3694@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140107125930.GW31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 01:59:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:55:18PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > My understanding is that should_we_balance() decides which cpu is
> > eligible for doing the load balancing for a given domain (and the
> > domains above). That is, only one cpu in a group is allowed to load
> > balance between the local group and other groups. That cpu would
> > therefore be reponsible for pulling enough load that the groups are
> > balanced even if it means temporarily overloading itself. The other cpus
> > in the group will take care of load balancing the extra load within the
> > local group later.
>
> Correct.
On that; one of the things I wanted to (and previously did attempt but
failed) is trying to rotate this cpu. Currently its always the first cpu
(of the group) and that gives a noticeable bias.
If we could slowly rotate the cpu that does this that would alleviate
both the load and cost bias.
One thing I was thinking of is keeping a global counter maybe:
'x := jiffies >> n'
might be good enough and using the 'x % nr_cpus_in_group'-th cpu
instead.
Then again, these are micro issue and not a lot of people complain
about this.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-07 13:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-03 9:05 [PATCH 0/4] sched: remove cpu_load decay Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched: shortcut to remove load_idx Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched: remove rq->cpu_load[load_idx] array Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched: clean up cpu_load update Alex Shi
2013-12-03 9:05 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched: bias to target cpu load to reduce task moving Alex Shi
2013-12-04 9:06 ` Yuanhan Liu
2013-12-04 11:25 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-17 14:10 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-17 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-19 13:34 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-20 11:19 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-20 14:45 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-25 14:58 ` Alex Shi
2014-01-02 16:04 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-01-06 13:35 ` Alex Shi
2014-01-07 12:55 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-01-07 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-07 13:15 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-01-07 13:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-07 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-07 15:16 ` Morten Rasmussen
2014-01-07 20:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-08 14:15 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-03 10:26 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched: remove cpu_load decay Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-10 1:04 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-10 1:06 ` Paul Turner
2013-12-13 19:50 ` bsegall
2013-12-14 12:53 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-13 20:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-14 13:27 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-17 14:04 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-17 15:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-17 18:12 ` Morten Rasmussen
2013-12-20 14:43 ` Alex Shi
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=20140107131523.GX3694@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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
Powered by JetHome