From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: James Hartsock <hartsjc@redhat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@parallels.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] sched: unused cpu in affine workload
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 10:23:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160404082302.GB2137@krava.local> (raw)
hi,
we've noticed following issue in one of our workloads.
I have 24 CPUs server with following sched domains:
domain 0: (pairs)
domain 1: 0-5,12-17 (group1) 6-11,18-23 (group2)
domain 2: 0-23 level NUMA
I run CPU hogging workload on following CPUs:
4,6,14,18,19,20,23
that is:
4,14 CPUs from group1
6,18,19,20,23 CPUs from group2
the workload process gets affinity setup via 'taskset -c ${CPUs workload ...'
and forks child for every CPU
very often we notice CPUs 4 and 14 running 3 processes of the workload
while CPUs 6,18,19,20,23 running just 4 processes, leaving one of the
CPU from group2 idle
AFAICS from the code the reason for this is that the load balancing
follows domains setup (topology) and does not regard affinity setups
like this. The code in find_busiest_group running under idle cpu from
group2 will find group1 as bussiest, but its average load will be
smaller than the one on the local group, so there's no task pulling.
It's obvious, that load balancer follows sched domain topology.
However is there some sched feature I'm missing that could help
with this? Or do we need to follow sched domains topology when
we select CPUs for workload to get even balancing?
thanks,
jirka
next reply other threads:[~2016-04-04 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-04 8:23 Jiri Olsa [this message]
2016-04-04 8:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-04 8:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-04 9:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-04 9:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-04-04 13:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-04 19:45 ` Rik van Riel
2016-04-04 21:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-04-05 8:56 ` Jiri Olsa
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=20160404082302.GB2137@krava.local \
--to=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=hartsjc@redhat.com \
--cc=ktkhai@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.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®