From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>,
Suruchi Kadu <suruchi.a.kadu@intel.com>,
Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched-rt: Reduce excessive task push rate by not pushing tasks with equal priority as the current task
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:50:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150122235048.5246a611@grimm.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1421987370.5280.21.camel@marge.simpson.net>
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:29:30 +0100
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 10:53 -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > Commit 3be209a8 tries to migrate task of equal priority as the
> > running one to other cpus to balance load and eliminate any idle
> > cpus. However, for system that is fully busy and running workload
> > of a few priorities, we found this change to cause tasks getting
> > pushed around without improving cpu utilization. On a fully loaded
> > system running a well known OLTP benchmark, it causes 70% more run
> > queue locking in the push task path without improving cpu
> > utilization and make throughput degrade by 1.5%. We observe much
> > higher rq lock contention due to excessive lockings of target run
> > queues on task wakeup.
>
> Pushing tasks of equal priority is about getting rt tasks to a CPU
> they can utilize NOW. Trying to improve throughput and whatnot is
> all well and good, but sacrificing the most sacred rt cow on the
> planet to improve some benchmark number is a very bad idea :)
>
What Mike said.
With RT tasks the #1 importance is running as soon as they should run.
Throughput is #2. We never sacrifice #1 to improve #2.
Non RT tasks have much better throughput algorithms than RT tasks. But
they are much less likely to react to an event consistently as an RT
task will.
Never give a task an RT priority if your main objective is to have it
"run faster". If you do, you have no clue about what RT is used for.
-- Steve
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-23 4:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-22 18:53 Tim Chen
2015-01-23 4:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-01-23 4:50 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
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=20150122235048.5246a611@grimm.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=doug.nelson@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com \
--cc=suruchi.a.kadu@intel.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.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®