mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

      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®