mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 21:37:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140107203752.GC2480@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140107151632.GF2936@e103034-lin>

On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 03:16:32PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> From a load perspective wouldn't it be better to pick the least loaded
> cpu in the group? It is not cheap to implement, but in theory it should
> give less balancing within the group later an less unfairness until it
> happens.

I tried that; see 04f733b4afac5dc93ae9b0a8703c60b87def491e for why it
doesn't work.

> Rotating the cpu is probably good enough for most cases and certainly
> easier to implement.

Indeed.

> The bias continues after they first round of load balance by the other
> cpus?

The cost, yes. Even when perfectly balanced, we still get to iterate the
entire machine computing s[gd]_lb_stats to find out we're good and don't
need to move tasks about.

> Pulling everything to one cpu is not ideal from a performance point of
> view. You loose some available cpu cycles until the balance settles.
> However, it is not easy to do better and maintain scalability at the
> same time.

Right, its part of the cost we pay for scaling better. And rotating this
cost around a bit would alleviate the obvious bias.



  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-07 20:38 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
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 [this message]
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=20140107203752.GC2480@laptop.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