From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 09:34:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jhjbli65ddv.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBmNF8WrXLrnQow037bk=7z285ub7yLp2KdFQcJK1fsUw@mail.gmail.com>
On 16/09/20 08:02, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2020 at 21:04, Valentin Schneider
> <valentin.schneider@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/09/20 11:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > The busy_factor, which increases load balance interval when a cpu is busy,
>> > is set to 32 by default. This value generates some huge LB interval on
>> > large system like the THX2 made of 2 node x 28 cores x 4 threads.
>> > For such system, the interval increases from 112ms to 3584ms at MC level.
>> > And from 228ms to 7168ms at NUMA level.
>> >
>> > Even on smaller system, a lower busy factor has shown improvement on the
>> > fair distribution of the running time so let reduce it for all.
>> >
>>
>> ISTR you mentioned taking this one step further and making
>> (interval * busy_factor) scale logarithmically with the number of CPUs to
>> avoid reaching outrageous numbers. Did you experiment with that already?
>
> Yes I have tried the logarithmically scale but It didn't give any
> benefit compared to this solution for the fairness problem but
> impacted other use cases because it impacts idle interval and it also
> adds more constraints in the computation of the interval and
> busy_factor because we can end up with the same interval for 2
> consecutive levels .
>
Right, I suppose we could frob a topology level index in there to prevent
that if we really wanted to...
> That being said, it might be useful for other cases but i haven't look
> further for this
>
Fair enough!
>>
>> > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
>> > ---
>> > kernel/sched/topology.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > index 1a84b778755d..a8477c9e8569 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> > @@ -1336,7 +1336,7 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
>> > *sd = (struct sched_domain){
>> > .min_interval = sd_weight,
>> > .max_interval = 2*sd_weight,
>> > - .busy_factor = 32,
>> > + .busy_factor = 16,
>> > .imbalance_pct = 117,
>> >
>> > .cache_nice_tries = 0,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-16 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-14 10:03 [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: relax constraint on task's load during load balance Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/fair: reduce minimal imbalance threshold Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15 19:04 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 6:53 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-16 8:33 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: minimize concurrent LBs between domain level Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15 19:04 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 6:54 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 10:03 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: reduce busy load balance interval Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15 9:11 ` Jiang Biao
2020-09-15 9:28 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-15 11:36 ` Jiang Biao
2020-09-15 12:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-16 1:14 ` Jiang Biao
2020-09-15 19:04 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-09-16 7:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-16 8:34 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2020-09-14 11:42 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched/fair: Improve fairness between cfs tasks peterz
2020-09-14 12:53 ` Phil Auld
2020-09-14 16:03 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-14 15:50 ` Mel Gorman
2020-09-14 16:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-09-18 16:39 ` Phil Auld
2020-09-18 17:27 ` Phil Auld
2020-09-15 19:05 ` Valentin Schneider
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=jhjbli65ddv.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--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